PrepTest 156, Section 2, Question 5
Zobel: Peterson's analytic concepts are wrong and should(93 more words not shown)
Based on the information in(25 more words not shown)
- AThe claim is(15 more words not shown)
- BThe claim has(23 more words not shown)
- CThe claim cannot(20 more words not shown)
- DThe claim is(19 more words not shown)
- EThe claim is(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The students might be biased. Does that make Peterson wrong?
Zobel describes a believable source of attachment. Peterson's students undergo psychoanalysis as part of their training. Their teacher interprets their dreams, actions, and fantasies, and they may become emotionally attached to both the teacher and those interpretations. If an interpretation has become important to your understanding of yourself, rejecting the method behind it might be difficult.
I'm willing to consider that explanation. But it doesn't tell us whether the method is any good. A student could admire Peterson, feel attached to her account, and also have sound reasons for believing it. Even if the student's judgment is biased, Peterson's concepts could still be correct.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to assess Zobel's claim that the concepts are wrong and should be rejected. My response is: you haven't established that. Showing why people might be emotionally committed to an idea is different from showing that the idea is false. We haven't proved Peterson right, either; we need evidence about her concepts to settle that issue.
Working the answers
- A
We don't need to settle Zobel's qualifications to identify the problem. A highly qualified critic could make this same bad inference, and an unqualified critic could identify a real defect in a theory. The passage's problem is the gap between student bias and the truth of Peterson's concepts, not the absence of a credential check.
- BCorrect
Zobel's evidence could show bias in the students' evaluation of Peterson's concepts. It does not establish that the concepts themselves are wrong. B keeps those two issues separate and draws the right assessment: the claim has not been established. That leaves open whether a different argument could establish it.
- C
Why would no psychoanalyst be able to assess another psychoanalyst objectively? Zobel describes emotional bonds between a teacher and students, not a universal inability to evaluate anyone else's work. We can also assess this argument and recognize that its evidence falls short; an inconclusive argument isn't one that cannot be evaluated at all.
- D
A professional rivalry isn't obvious from the passage. Zobel criticizes Peterson, but disagreement doesn't establish a rivalry or an inability to judge fairly. D answers one unsupported claim about Peterson with another unsupported claim about Zobel.
- E
The evidence concerns the students' emotional reasons for accepting the concepts. It doesn't show that Peterson developed the concepts through emotion instead of reasoning, or that the concepts are false. E transfers a criticism of the followers' judgment to the ideas themselves, repeating the very problem we're supposed to notice.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.