PrepTest 129, Section 2, Question 4
Professor: A guest speaker recently delivered a talk(61 more words not shown)
The professor's reasoning is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Adraws a conclusion(20 more words not shown)
- Bis inconsistent in(10 more words not shown)
- Crelies primarily on(3 more words not shown)
- Ddraws a general(7 more words not shown)
- Eincorrectly focuses on(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A carefully researched talk can still be open to criticism. But taunting the speaker is a fact about how these students behaved, not a demonstration that universities generally fail to encourage fair debate.
How many people are we judging from? Two students taunted the speaker, and several others applauded. They might be a small minority in a large class, much less an entire university. Imagine judging a university with thousands of students by the behavior of a handful of its worst-behaved members. We would want to know whether that handful represents everyone else.
We also have no description of the university's response. Perhaps the students were reprimanded or expelled. Even if we heard nothing about a punishment, that would not by itself establish that the institution endorsed their behavior.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion reaches farther still: it concerns universities these days, in general. One incident involving a few students at one university is a very small basis for that claim. For the flaw question, I want an answer identifying that jump from a limited example to a sweeping conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The problem is not that the professor failed to conduct a majority vote. The evidence offered is the students' behavior at the talk. We need to know whether that incident supports a conclusion about universities generally, not whether most audience members share the professor's opinion.
- B
Objecting to disruptive behavior is different from rejecting the students' views. Someone can support a student's right to disagree with a speaker while objecting to vicious taunts. The professor does not become inconsistent merely by criticizing the way those students expressed their disagreement.
- C
The incident may provoke an emotional reaction, but the argument offers it as evidence of a general institutional problem. The central defect is the leap from that small example to the broad conclusion, not a plea to accept the conclusion because of an emotion.
- DCorrect
A few students' behavior during one talk is the small sample; the claim about universities generally is the broad conclusion. These students might be unusual, and their university might actively discourage the conduct. The example does not establish the wider pattern the professor claims.
- E
Explaining why the students behaved badly would not resolve the sampling problem. Even if we knew exactly why they objected to the speaker, we would still need evidence connecting their conduct with what universities generally encourage. The flaw concerns the reach of the conclusion, not the failure to explain the students' motives.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.