PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 11
Letter to the editor: According to your last(51 more words not shown)
The reasoning above is most(8 more words not shown)
- Acriticizes the editor(7 more words not shown)
- Bdiverts attention from(11 more words not shown)
- Ccommits the same(10 more words not shown)
- Dattacks the integrity(8 more words not shown)
- Econfuses two meanings(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The writers want other people to identify themselves, but they don't identify themselves. I can see why the letter writer objects to that. It looks inconsistent to dismiss anonymity while choosing to remain anonymous.
But suppose they are being hypocritical. Does that make their proposal wrong? Imagine someone who smokes saying that smoking is bad for you. Pointing out that the speaker smokes wouldn't show that the health warning is false. It would show that the speaker doesn't follow the advice.
What we’re looking for
The same distinction matters here. Whether the writers sign their article is one question; whether people should have to carry identification and show it on demand is another. The letter gives us a criticism of the writers' conduct without addressing the reasons for or against the proposed requirement. For the flaw question, that's my prediction: the writer attacks what the authors did instead of showing what's wrong with their position.
Working the answers
- A
The letter is addressed to the editor, but its criticism concerns the writers who failed to put their names on the article. A identifies the wrong target. The relevant shift is from the writers' proposal to the writers' conduct, not from the writers to the editor.
- BCorrect
The letter focuses on the authors' choice to remain anonymous and uses that to dismiss their opinion about identification requirements. Even if their behavior is inconsistent with their position, the position could still be defensible. We need an argument about the requirement itself to establish that it is wrong.
- C
We aren't shown the letter writer making the same mistake attributed to the article's authors. The letter accuses them of refusing to identify themselves while dismissing anonymity; we don't know whether the letter itself was signed. More basically, the letter doesn't advocate the same identification requirement, so its writer isn't shown taking the same inconsistent position.
- D
The letter does rely on something known about the writers: they published the article anonymously. We can question whether that fact justifies rejecting their proposal, but it would be inaccurate to say the criticism is made without knowing anything about them. D misses the actual weakness by overstating the lack of information.
- E
Both uses of anonymity concern withholding one's identity. Publishing without a name and declining to show identification are different situations, but that doesn't mean the word changes its meaning. The problem is treating the writers' behavior as a refutation of their opinion, not switching definitions.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.