LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 01

June 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:11

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT110 S2 Q01	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 92% 166 B 2% 159 C 1% 160 D 2% 161 E 3% 164	120 125 142	+Easiest	145.606 +SubsectionMedium

In his new book on his complex scientific research, R frequently imputes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with him. A troubling aspect of R’s book is his stated conviction that other investigators’ funding sources often determine what “findings” those investigators report. Add to this that R has often shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and sometimes plain nasty, and it becomes clear that R’s book does not merit attention from serious professionals.

Summarize Argument

The author of the book review concludes that R’s book doesn’t deserve attention from serious professionals because R frequently attributes bad faith to his critics, R believes that investigators’ funding sources determine what types of “findings” they report, and R often acts arrogant, overly ambitious, and nasty.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. In this instance, the author of the book review says that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because R is an unpleasant person who accuses his critics of bad things. Rather than attempting to point out issues with R’s book, the author just points out issues with R.

using an attack on the character of the writer of the book as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance

This is the flaw the author commits. Rather than criticizing R’s book, the author criticizes R and cites those criticisms of R as why R isn’t competent on matters of scientific substance.

taking it for granted that an investigator is unlikely to report findings that are contrary to the interests of those funding the investigation

The author doesn’t make this assumption. The author accuses R of making this assumption.

dismissing a scientific theory by giving a biased account of it

The author doesn’t give an account of R’s theory. The author just argues that R’s book shouldn’t receive attention from serious professionals because R has character flaws.

presenting as facts several assertions about the book under review that are based only on strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify

The author doesn’t make several assertions about the book. The author only makes several assertions about R and why R’s behavior proves that R’s book doesn’t deserve serious consideration.

failing to distinguish between the criteria of being true and of being sufficiently interesting to merit attention

The author isn’t concerned with whether R’s book is true or interesting. The author only argues that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because of R’s character flaws.

LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 01

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 110 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel