PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 21
Professor Riley characterized the university president's speech as(57 more words not shown)
The argument is flawed in(2 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(12 more words not shown)
- Bfails to adequately(12 more words not shown)
- Cfavors the university(12 more words not shown)
- Dconcludes that Riley's(20 more words not shown)
- Efails to adequately(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A speech could be inappropriate without being inflammatory.
Start with the more cautious part of the argument. Riley has a long-running feud with the president. That could give us a reason to seek independent evidence before accepting Riley's description of the speech. It doesn't prove that Riley is lying, and the author initially avoids saying that it does.
But then the author goes much further: unless we have independent reasons to call the speech inflammatory, it wasn't inappropriate. Why should inflammatory language be the only way a speech can be inappropriate? The speech might be entirely calm but unsuitable for the occasion for some other reason.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, follow that final jump. Even setting aside the dispute over Riley's credibility, eliminating one possible reason for calling a speech inappropriate doesn't eliminate every other reason.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The author treats being inflammatory as a requirement for being inappropriate. But those descriptions aren't interchangeable. A speech could be inappropriate for another reason, even if we had no basis for calling it inflammatory. The argument doesn't address those other possibilities before rejecting the broader criticism.
- B
This asks whether being inflammatory always makes a speech inappropriate. Our objection runs in the other direction: could a speech be inappropriate even without being inflammatory? The author's final inference rules out inappropriateness by focusing only on inflammatory content. B doesn't identify that mistake.
- C
The argument doesn't defend the president because of her privileged position. It raises a concern about Riley's long-standing feud. A high-status person could be the subject of a biased criticism, but status itself isn't offered as the reason to discount this testimony.
- D
Be careful about the author's limited claim concerning Riley. The author says we shouldn't conclude the speech was inflammatory solely from Riley's testimony. That isn't the same as declaring the description false because Riley stands to gain. The eventual rejection of inappropriateness also depends on the further assumption that no other kind of problem could make the speech inappropriate.
- E
Riley could have excellent reasons for disliking the president and still describe this particular speech accurately or inaccurately. Settling whether the feud is justified doesn't settle the speech's character. It also doesn't fix the author's assumption that the only relevant defect would be inflammatory content.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.