Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: how is this even a flaw!?!  (Read 856 times)

ě

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2007, 12:14:44 PM »
Ok, PT #06 - Oct 1992

The flaw is as someone has said that the argument takes for granted that what the security guards says is a fact. This could be true, but it doesn't have to be. The question doesn't ask anything about the burglary itself, you're just supposed to find an argument with a similar flaw. That means, you have to find a flaw where some person or entity makes a claim and that the conclusion assumes that claim to be factual without further proof.

Alternative b) to this question is the correct answer, because the argument assumes that the store's competitors are correct, without any further evidence supporting that.

. . . . . .

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2327
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2007, 12:20:38 PM »
I don't have PT#6. The oldest one that I have is 7.

LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2007, 12:33:34 PM »
Hard to tell without the question or response options, but it could be that they convinced you to look at the choices as either/or when they are not.  Just because the thief did not break in at or above ground level does not necessarily mean the thief broke in below ground level.  The thief may not have broken in at all.  It could be an inside job or the thief could have entered with permission for some reason.
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

. . . . . .

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2327
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2007, 12:34:14 PM »
maybe the security guard is the theif

ě

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2007, 09:46:45 AM »
I already answered the question... doesn't matter if the security guard is a thief, that's not what the question is about. Read four posts up :(

Marko

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2007, 10:11:03 AM »
from the fact that the security guard believes something to be the case, the author concludes that it MUST be the case.

if he said something like "we have no reason to believe the guard is lying, so it's likely to be true" then it would be an okay argument but the author doesn't qualify it. he makes a hasty generalization which is a type of fallacy common in inductive arguments.

the word MUST should jump out at you. MUST means that there are no other possible explanations except for the one given by the guard. it's absolutely true and under no circumstance can the premise given lead us to a false conclusion. does the argument really warrant such a strong conclusion given the premise is just one eye witness testimony? imagine a criminal law system based on that.

ps gain access can be assumed to be equal to enter i think. they would never test the logical equivalence of these two because it's so subjective.
"Miss McElroy says I can do better than B's and C's, but I've decided to stop doing homework and spend the next 15 years studying for the LSAT."