For each of the three flawed argumentative excerpts below, evaluate the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. Which pairings correctly match each argumentative excerpt with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its primary reasoning vulnerability?
- Paleoclimatologist: Extracting an intact core sample from the glacial plateau is necessary to verify the timing of the prehistoric atmospheric shift. Because our drilling expedition successfully extracted a completely intact core sample from the plateau, we have conclusively verified the timing of the atmospheric shift.Treats a condition that is required to achieve a particular outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
- City Planner: To revitalize the riverfront district, the municipal council must either approve the proposed commercial rezoning plan or permit the entire waterfront to deteriorate into irreversible economic blight. Because preventing blight is essential, the council must approve the proposed commercial rezoning plan.Assumes without justification that only two mutually exclusive courses of action are possible, overlooking plausible intermediate alternatives.
- Cybersecurity Analyst: The lead developer argued that our payment processing portal has several critical cryptographic vulnerabilities. However, that developer was recently reprimanded for chronic absenteeism and missed project deadlines. Therefore, the payment portal does not contain any vulnerabilities.Rejects a claim by targeting the personal habits and workplace conduct of its proponent rather than evaluating the substance of the claim.
Answer
The paleoclimatologist's excerpt matches the description of treating a necessary condition as sufficient; the city planner's excerpt matches the description of presenting an unwarranted false dilemma; and the cybersecurity analyst's excerpt matches the description of attacking the proponent's conduct rather than the claim.
Each argument corresponds to a classic LSAT reasoning vulnerability: the paleoclimatologist confuses a necessary condition (intact core) for a sufficient one; the city planner constructs an unwarranted false dilemma between approval and blight; and the cybersecurity analyst engages in an ad hominem attack by dismissing a technical warning based on employee attendance records.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Identifying reasoning flaws in argumentative structures
Estimated Time:1m 45s