PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 11
Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend to view their own(42 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the psychologist's(7 more words not shown)
- Ageneralizes about all(8 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes that the(16 more words not shown)
- Cdraws a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
- Dappeals to the(13 more words not shown)
- Edisputes a claim(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What evidence do the geneticists have?
It's reasonable to think specialists care about their specialties. If you've devoted your career to genetics, you probably think genetics matters. But that doesn't settle whether a particular personality trait is genetically determined. A geneticist could enjoy discovering another role for genes and have excellent evidence for that discovery.
What we’re looking for
The psychologist skips the evidence and focuses on the possible motive: these scientists probably just want to feel important. If the geneticists offered no support, skepticism might be warranted. But we haven't heard their support at all. For the flaw question, that's the objection to capture: the psychologist challenges their claim by speculating about why they make it, instead of examining whether they can back it up.
Working the answers
- A
The argument does make a general statement about specialists, but it gives that statement as a premise. It doesn't report a sample of specialists and use that sample to establish the generalization. The conclusion specifically challenges the geneticists' claims. A describes a sampling argument we weren't given.
- B
A traditional view is mentioned: these traits weren't traditionally thought to be genetically determined. But the psychologist doesn't say that older view is correct simply because it is traditional. The stated reason for skepticism is the geneticists' supposed desire to feel important. We need to identify the objection actually made.
- C
The premise about specialists valuing their work doesn't merely repeat the conclusion that we should doubt these particular claims. The psychologist offers a separate reason, though an inadequate one. Circular reasoning would be something like 'We should doubt these claims because these claims are doubtful.' That isn't the reasoning here.
- D
The psychologist doesn't cite some other person's authority as evidence that the geneticists are wrong. The argument makes its own claim about their motivation. Calling the speaker a psychologist doesn't turn the reasoning into an appeal to an uninformed authority.
- ECorrect
The disputed claim is that certain personality traits are genetically determined. The supposed motive is making the geneticists feel more important. But neither pride nor professional interest tells us what their evidence shows. The psychologist needs to assess that evidence rather than treating a possible motive as an adequate reason to challenge the claim.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.