PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 1
Journalist: One reason many people believe in extrasensory(47 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the journalist's(6 more words not shown)
- Auses an irrelevant(7 more words not shown)
- Binfers that something(13 more words not shown)
- Cpresupposes that, in(8 more words not shown)
- Dimplies that all(11 more words not shown)
- Eovergeneralizes from the(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One researcher lied. What about the other experiments?
The admission gives us a real reason to distrust that researcher's work. If someone invented results to get more funding, we shouldn't treat those results as a demonstration of ESP. But the journalist goes much further and declares ESP a myth.
What if a different researcher conducted a valid experiment? We haven't been told that happened, and we don't need to establish that ESP is real. The point is that the admission leaves other researchers' work unaddressed. A dishonest study and a sound study could exist in the same field. Discrediting one doesn't automatically discredit the other.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for that expansion from one person's deception to a rejection of the broader evidence. The journalist needs a reason to dismiss the other experiments, not just a reason to distrust this researcher.
Working the answers
- A
The attack is relevant to this researcher's evidence. This isn't a complaint about an unrelated character trait: the researcher admits falsifying the very kind of data being offered as support. That admission gives us reason to question the work.
The mistake comes when the journalist extends that reason beyond the work it concerns. We can legitimately distrust this researcher without declaring every experiment in the field worthless. A would misdescribe the first step and miss the unsupported expansion.
- B
The journalist doesn't call ESP a myth because people believe it. Public belief is the situation the journalist wants to explain and criticize. The offered reason for rejecting ESP is the researcher's deception, not the mere existence of believers.
- C
Saying experiments are one source of belief doesn't mean they are the only possible source of support. The passage doesn't make that general claim about what can justify a belief. We don't need to decide whether someone's personal experience could provide evidence to see the overreach here.
- D
Depending on grants isn't the conduct being criticized. Falsifying data to obtain grants is. A scientist could rely on grants and report results honestly. The journalist doesn't say otherwise, so D substitutes a broader claim about funding for the particular deception described.
- ECorrect
The evidence concerns one deceptive researcher; the conclusion rejects ESP and dismisses the public's confidence in the experiments generally. The journalist has not shown that the other research is deceptive or defective. That is the overgeneralization: treating one exposed problem as if it settles the entire body of evidence.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.