PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 15
Armstrong: For the treatment of a particular disease,(43 more words not shown)
Armstrong's argument is flawed in(2 more words not shown)
- Arelies on two(10 more words not shown)
- Brelies solely on(14 more words not shown)
- Cappeals to people's(17 more words not shown)
- Dcriticizes Dr. Sullivan's(11 more words not shown)
- Efails to justify(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the supplements work?
Dr. Sullivan gets paid to endorse them, so there is a reason to examine the recommendation carefully. But payment doesn't tell us whether the treatment is effective. The supplements could work well, poorly, or not at all. We still need evidence about the treatment.
Even the story about his motivation is incomplete. Perhaps he already believed in the supplements, and a company approached him because his views suited its product. Or perhaps the money does influence his recommendation. Either way, identifying a possible financial motive doesn't establish that we should reject the supplements.
What we’re looking for
Armstrong goes from “Be skeptical of this recommendation” to “Don't use this treatment.” Those are different positions. The flaw question asks us to identify the problem with substituting an attack on the doctor's motive for an examination of whether his recommendation is sound.
Working the answers
- A
“Supplement” has the same meaning throughout: a nutritional product used in treatment. There is no shift to a different meaning, such as supplementary reading material. The argument's problem isn't ambiguity in that word.
- B
An appeal to authority would say we should accept the treatment because Dr. Sullivan recommends it. Armstrong does the opposite: rejects the recommendation because of the doctor's financial interest. The argument attacks the person offered as an authority rather than relying on that person's judgment.
- C
Armstrong doesn't appeal to fear or sympathy about disease. An emotional appeal might ask us to picture suffering patients instead of examining the evidence. This argument instead points to a financial motive. Failing to discuss effectiveness doesn't automatically make the argument an appeal to emotion.
- DCorrect
Armstrong criticizes why Sullivan might favor supplements without assessing the merits of using them. A paid endorsement could deserve scrutiny while still recommending an effective treatment. The missing step is evidence about whether the supplements should be used, not merely a reason to question the doctor's independence.
- E
The argument doesn't rely on assuming that supplements and pharmaceuticals cannot be combined. Its stated reason for rejecting supplements is Sullivan's payment. Even if combining treatments were possible, we would still need to address the unsupported move from that payment to rejecting his recommendation.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.