PrepTest 144, Section 2, Question 4
Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of(62 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the biologist's(12 more words not shown)
- Atakes the behavior(10 more words not shown)
- Bfails to explain(12 more words not shown)
- Cfocuses its attention(10 more words not shown)
- Dfails to demonstrate(7 more words not shown)
- Eholds the study's(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A good researcher can still produce a study that deserves criticism.
The sample contains only six chameleons. That's a small group, and the biologist admits as much. The result may be plausible: perhaps these animals really do bask in the sun partly to regulate vitamin D. But plausibility doesn't answer the critics' concern about whether this study supports that finding.
What defense do we get? The author is well regarded and has done excellent work for years. That tells us about the researcher's record, not whether the small sample was adequate here. We need to examine this study's evidence and methods. A reputation doesn't resolve a specific problem with the current work.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what went wrong in that defense. The biologist points to who conducted the study instead of explaining why the study itself deserves confidence.
Working the answers
- A
Keep the biologist's argument separate from the study being reported. The biologist is defending the study against a concern about its small sample, and the offered defense is the author's reputation. A concern about extending findings to other kinds of lizards does not identify the mistake in that defense. We don't need to resolve how broadly the study's phrase 'lizards such as chameleons' applies to see why the reputation argument fails.
- B
A study could give good evidence that sunlight affects vitamin D production without explaining every step of the biological process. We can establish that two things are connected before fully understanding how the connection works. The failure here is not an omitted mechanism; it's that the biologist substitutes a favorable description of the researcher for an assessment of the study.
- CCorrect
The defense focuses on the author being respected and having a strong record. It never explains why this particular study's six-animal sample supports its conclusion. Previous excellent work does not guarantee that the current work is sound.
- D
Establishing the critics' credentials would not answer their concern about the sample. Their objection needs to be evaluated on its merits, just as the study does. The biologist cannot settle the evidence question by deciding which people have the more impressive professional standing.
- E
The biologist is giving the study's author the benefit of a good reputation, not demanding a higher standard from that author. Nothing in the argument shows the author being held to a stricter evidentiary requirement than the critics.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.