Q7 - Kevin: My barber shop sells

[christine.defenbaugh]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Sabine's conclusion refers to (and rejects) an earlier claim, so we have to take a moment to parse and simplify what she's really saying.
Conclusion: That herbal supplement doesn't work to prevent baldness.
Evidence: The person who claimed it worked (the barber) makes money when people buy it.

Answer Anticipation:
Classic flaw here! Sabine has a point that the barber might be totally lying just to get people to give him money - that's a great reason to doubt the barber. But she goes too far in concluding that the barber must be wrong or lying about the supplement. Not everyone who's selling you something is automatically lying! (Of course, they aren't necessarily telling the truth either...)

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Two things should give you pause here. First, it's not clear that the description of the supplement is scientifically plausible. We could probably argue about that for awhile. But more significantly, Sabine never points out that the barber isn't a scientist. This one is tempting if you the reader were bothered that the barber isn't a scientist. It's a reasonable point to raise as a concern, but Sabine never raises it.

(B) This leaps to harmfulness, which is totally out of scope. Sabine's conclusion is just a rejection of the claim that the supplement works - she never touches on harm!

(C) While it's true that Sabine rejects the claim about the supplement without offering an alternative, that's not a logic flaw. Plus, this answer choice talks about rejecting an explanation. You could stretch a bit and try to argue that she's rejecting the 'because it works' explanation for why the barber is pushing the supplement, but if so, then she does offer an alternative explanation - because he makes money. This answer is designed to smell kind of right if you don't look too closely at it.

(D) This is sort of backwards. She knows the claim was made - Kevin said so, and everyone seems to accept that the barber made the claim. She's also not drawing a conclusion about his motives - instead she's presenting his motives as gospel (evidence), and drawing a conclusion about the efficacy of the supplement.

(E) This describes the classic flaw exactly - Sabine rejects the idea that the supplement could work solely because the barber makes money off of it. And that's not a valid reason to reject his claim outright!

Takeaway/Pattern:
Bias is a funny thing. Noting that someone is or could be biased, or have an ulterior motive, is perfectly legitimate. It's also totally valid logic to conclude that they might not be telling the truth, or that we should get a second opinion. It would, for example, be flawed to just trust that they are definitely right, despite their potential bias. But it's not okay to go clear to the other extreme and conclude that they are automatically wrong or lying. This is a variant of the classic ad hominem flaw - trashing the argument because the speaker has a certain characteristic.

#officialexplanation