PrepTest 156, Section 2, Question 11
Professor Williams: Professor Thomas's report characterizes our colleague(58 more words not shown)
Professor Williams's argument is flawed(2 more words not shown)
- Aconfuses the distinction(10 more words not shown)
- Bpresupposes the point(5 more words not shown)
- Cmistakes Professor Thomas's(10 more words not shown)
- Dattacks Professor Thomas(7 more words not shown)
- Erejects the possibility(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Thomas is jealous. But is York too confrontational? Keep the three professors straight. Thomas writes a report criticizing York's classroom behavior. Williams responds by suggesting that Thomas wishes to be a better speaker and entertainer, and vents that frustration by criticizing York.
That might be a possible motive, but Williams doesn't give us evidence establishing it. More importantly, even a jealous colleague could report a real problem. York might genuinely be too confrontational, regardless of whether Thomas envies York's speaking ability.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for the flaw in Williams's response. I'd focus on the switch from assessing the criticism to criticizing the person who made it. Instead of examining what York does in the classroom, Williams speculates about Thomas's frustrations. That leaves the original complaint unanswered.
Working the answers
- A
The passage doesn't show Williams treating excessive confrontation and engaging entertainment as the same thing. Williams suggests a motive for Thomas's criticism. Whether the two teaching styles are distinct is different from the problem with responding through that personal allegation.
- B
This would involve using the point to be proved as its own support, something like 'Thomas is jealous because Thomas is jealous.' Williams instead points to the report's resemblance to a supposedly self-serving academic's argument. That doesn't establish the allegation well, but weak support is not automatically circular support.
- C
Describing a view and endorsing it can be different; someone could report another person's opinion without agreeing. But that distinction isn't what goes wrong here. Thomas's report criticizes York, and Williams attacks Thomas's supposed motive for that criticism. Williams doesn't mistake a neutral description of someone else's view for Thomas's endorsement.
- DCorrect
Williams attacks Thomas personally instead of addressing the report's argument. Saying, in effect, 'You're criticizing York because you wish you were a better entertainer' doesn't establish that the criticism is inaccurate. The issue about York's classroom conduct remains even if Thomas has an unattractive motive.
- E
Williams casts suspicion on Thomas but doesn't explicitly rule out the possibility that York really is too confrontational. The more precise problem is the attempt to answer the criticism by speculating about the critic. D identifies that move without making this stronger claim about what Williams rejects.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.