Q3 - Genevieve: Increasing costs have led

[yooj]

I have problem choosing between choice (C) and (D). I acknowledge that in (C), Susan did not do something that was inconsistent with what she was recommending, rather, she was forced to be in a situation that was contradictory to her opinion.

However, in (D), Pat has shown the research saying that eating raw green vegetables is very beneficial and that one should eat them daily. Here, it does not say that Pat was the one who is arguing for certain position, rather she just showed the research to the speaker, unlike the stimulus, where the speaker is arguing for a position. If the speaker was saying "I don't believe it becasue the researchers do not act accordingly", it may be right, but the speaker says he/she does not believe the research becasue the one who merely "showed" the research does not act accordingly?

Is the answer (D) because the factor I just mentioned is not relevant in "reasoning" - does not have to be matched with stimulus? or not big enough to eliminate the answer choice?

Thank you in advance!

[acechaowang]

Harold made a mistake of attackting the source of the argument instead of focusing on the content. So D is the right choice. As for C, it should say susan has persuading me to go to climbing with her, but since she herself does not go to rock climbing, I will not believe her. hope it helps!

[Mab6q]

Let's break this one down. We are looking for an answer that relies on a questionable technique- is flawed in the same way – that the argument uses.

Harold claims that because G is claiming that one should avoid flying but is himself still doing it, we should not avoid flying.

This flaw is commonly known as the source argument or ad hominem. Instead of focusing on the merits of the argument the author focuses on the opposing person's character or actions. While this line of reasoning is often considered valid outside of the LSAT ("practice what you preach"), it's fallacious whenever it appears on the test.

A. In this situation, the criticism would hold more weight because David has not seen the film. We wouldn't classify this as a source argument.

B. The argument is not flawed.

C. Is wrong for a number of reasons. In this case, the fact that she fell and broke her collarbone serves doesn't serve the function as David continuing to fly. In addition, we don't know that she fell as a result of rock climbing, maybe it was something else. For C to have been right, it would've need to say something like: Pat claims that rock climbing is dangerous and one shouldn't attempt doing it, but she was rock climbing last week so it must not be the case that it's dangerous and one should do it.

D. Pat claims that eating green veggies is very beneficial and one should eat them daily but he doesn't do it, so I don't believe him. This is a great match. Just because Pat doesn't do it himself it doesn't mean his opinion holds any less value.

E. The criticism here is based on merit - his past performance -, it's not what we want.