LR Drill Set 11, Question 2
Criminologist: Dr. Ashton claims most people are not(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- ADr. Catalon's case(20 more words not shown)
- BDr. Ramirez's argument(44 more words not shown)
- CDr. Narayan argues(43 more words not shown)
- DDr. Eton's testimony(30 more words not shown)
- EDr. Makeba's claim(33 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What is wrong with Ashton's evidence?
The criminologist doesn't tell us. We hear that Ashton claims to have empirical support, then hear that his argument is exactly what we'd expect from his political views. That might explain why he's interested in the argument. It doesn't show that the evidence fails to support it.
We can be skeptical of Ashton's conclusion without accepting this dismissal. If the research is weak, examine it. If the reasoning doesn't follow, identify the missing step. Predictability of someone's position isn't a substitute for engaging with the case the person makes.
What we’re looking for
The parallel-flaw question needs another argument dismissed because of the advocate's background views rather than its merits. My initial way of putting that is 'rejecting someone based on who they are instead of what they say.' We should still read closely enough to match the actual reason for dismissal, not just choose any answer that raises a concern about a person.
Working the answers
- A
This criticizes the case itself: its only move is an attack on the sponsor's character. That's a reason to think it doesn't address the proposal. The original doesn't identify a defect in Ashton's argument; it dismisses the argument because it fits his politics. A is doing the kind of examination the original fails to do.
- B
This predicts an escalating series of developments from one road to widespread construction. Whether that chain is justified is a different issue. The answer doesn't dismiss Ramirez's case merely because it matches views she already holds. It rejects the proposal through feared consequences.
- CCorrect
Narayan cites traffic estimates as evidence against a highway. Instead of examining those estimates, the response says his opposition is predictable given his general opposition to new highways, and dismisses the argument.
That maps directly onto Ashton: empirical evidence corresponds to traffic estimates, political views to general highway opposition, and dismissal without examining the evidence to dismissal without examining the estimates. The important feature isn't membership in a particular group. It's treating an expected position as an argument that merits no consideration.
- D
This raises a potential conflict affecting a witness's credibility: the witness is close to the defendant. It doesn't automatically dismiss a reasoned argument because it matches a general political position. Its conclusion is also cautious—credibility is suspect—not that the testimony deserves no consideration. Those differences matter even if personal bias can sometimes be relevant to evaluating evidence.
- E
This calls for further investigation of a controversial explanation on which the conclusion depends. It doesn't dismiss the conclusion merely because it is what Makeba would be expected to say. Withholding acceptance pending investigation is a different response from declaring an argument unworthy of consideration.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.