PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 23
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to(89 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(25 more words not shown)
- Bneglects the possibility(20 more words not shown)
- Coverlooks the possibility(17 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(16 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A rule could make our beliefs more accurate and still be bad for our survival. Those are different goals.
The statisticians propose keeping the same set of beliefs except when evidence gives us reason to remove one. My first concern would be the beliefs we start with. What if I never had a good reason to accept one, but also never receive enough evidence to reject it? The rule could leave that belief in place. Still, that's not the objection the author goes on to make.
The author points out that the rule lets us remove beliefs without adding new ones. I'll grant that the set could shrink, and I'll grant the stated concern that we need many beliefs to survive. What would that show? It might make the rule dangerous to follow. It wouldn't establish that the rule fails at the different task of increasing the overall correctness of our beliefs.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for that shift. The author uses an unfavorable consequence to dismiss a claim about accuracy. We need to ask whether the consequence actually conflicts with what the statisticians claimed, rather than whether we would like the consequence.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The argument treats a threat to survival as a reason the statisticians' accuracy claim must be false. That assumes the surest method for increasing correctness cannot hinder survival. But why couldn't one method be best at improving correctness and poor at keeping us alive?
Accepting the author's survival concern doesn't settle the accuracy claim. A identifies the unstated connection needed to make that concern a refutation. We don't have to show that the rule is sensible to follow; we only have to distinguish the claim made for it from the objection raised against it.
- B
The stated rule permits changing the set only by rejecting a belief when there is adequate evidence against it. Adding a new belief would be a different kind of change. So B doesn't describe something allowed while following this rule as the only rule. It changes the proposal instead of identifying the problem with the author's criticism.
- C
A large set could be more accurate overall than a particular small set. That doesn't address the author's move from a shrinking set to a survival problem and then to rejection of the statisticians' claim. The author isn't arguing that every smaller set is more accurate than every larger set. C misses the connection the criticism actually requires.
- D
The author never needs to recommend retaining a belief despite adequate evidence against it. Criticizing this rule doesn't commit the author to that particular replacement policy. The problem is the attempted refutation of an accuracy claim through consequences for survival.
- E
We aren't told that every belief needed to maintain a large set must be correct. The author's premise concerns needing many beliefs to survive, not needing a special collection of entirely correct beliefs to have other beliefs. E adds a claim about correctness that the reasoning doesn't depend on.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.