Q7 - Several companies that make ginseng tea

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: These campaigns make false claims (i.e. "Ginseng does NOT counteract the effects of stress)
Evidence: No definitive scientific study has ever linked ginseng with stress relief.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a famous LSAT flaw we call Unproven vs. Untrue (aka "Failure to Prove ≠ Proof of Failure", or "Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence").

Even though no one has proven that claim X is true, we can't suddenly assume that claim X is false.

This author says that no one has ever proven "ginseng helps relieve stress" and then concludes "ginseng does NOT help relieve stress".

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This describes a different famous flaw: Ad Hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument). The author rejects the ginseng argument because there is no definitive study proving its claim.

(B) YES! If you didn't already know this flaw, just analyze the answer choice by asking yourself whether the Conclusion description and Premise description match the actual argument core. DOES the author conclude that a claim is false? Sure does. Is the premise something like "the claim that ginseng reduces stress has never been shown to be true"? Yup, we can match that too.

(C) Another famous flaw: Sampling. There is nothing close to sampling going on. The author's inference is based on there being NO scientific study that proves the ginseng claim. That's not a sample. That's an exhaustive consideration of all scientific studies.

(D) Would this weaken? No, because "enjoyment" is out of scope. We're only debating whether ginseng reduces stress.

(E) Would this weaken? No, because the marketing campaigns specifically claim that the GINSENG reduces the stress, not that the TEA reduces the stress. So the debate is restricted to whether ginseng itself reduces stress.

Takeaway/Pattern: The most direct way to advertise that they're doing Unproven vs. Untrue is to see some premise that sounds like "No one's ever proven" / "No definitive study exists".

The more subtle way to set up this flaw is to say that a claim relies on a dubious assumption, an inadequate argument, a flawed methodology. That gives us plenty of reason to DOUBT the original claim, but if an author concludes that the claim is FALSE, then she's gone too far.

#officialexplanation