PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 18
Dobson: Some historians claim that the people who(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe failure of(15 more words not shown)
- BDobson's conclusion logically(10 more words not shown)
- CStatements that absolutely(15 more words not shown)
- DSomething that is(19 more words not shown)
- EDobson's drawing the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could the alignment just be a coincidence? With many stones, there are many possible pairs. One pair pointing toward an important position of the sun may be less impressive than it first sounds.
Dobson makes that same objection, and it is a reasonable challenge to the historians' evidence. But then the conclusion goes too far: the builders supposedly were not knowledgeable about celestial events. Showing that this arrangement could arise without such knowledge doesn't show that the builders lacked the knowledge.
They might have known a great deal about the sky and arranged these particular stones for some other purpose. Or they might have deliberately made this alignment. The chance explanation leaves those possibilities open. It gives us a reason not to treat the pair as decisive evidence, not a reason to declare the opposite conclusion established.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for that switch from “you haven't shown that they knew” to “they didn't know.” We can accept Dobson's criticism of the evidence without accepting Dobson's claim about the builders.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The statement at issue is that the builders knew about celestial events. Dobson argues that the cited alignment fails to establish that statement, then treats the failure as evidence that the statement is false.
The builders' knowledge remains an open question. Perhaps other evidence would establish it; perhaps they lacked it. Nothing about the possibility of a coincidental alignment settles which is true. Dobson has weakened one proposed basis for the historians' claim, not proved that the builders were ignorant.
- B
The evidence and conclusion don't directly contradict each other. A ring with many stones and a chance alignment could have been made by people without celestial knowledge. It could also have been made by knowledgeable people. That compatibility with either possibility is why the evidence doesn't establish the conclusion; it isn't a logical contradiction.
- C
The evidence doesn't absolutely establish Dobson's conclusion. It offers an alternative explanation for the alignment, which is a much more limited achievement. This answer describes evidence being treated as weaker than it really is, while Dobson treats the criticism as proving too much.
- D
Whether the builders knew about celestial events is a factual question, even if we have difficulty answering it thousands of years later. Uncertainty about evidence doesn't turn the subject into a mere matter of opinion. Dobson's problem concerns the inference from the evidence.
- E
No key term changes meaning. Dobson uses the same claim about celestial knowledge throughout, first challenging its support and then denying it. The error doesn't depend on giving a word two different definitions.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.