Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumAppeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

City Council Member: We should not fund the proposed early-childhood cognitive development program. Dr. Vance, a highly respected and globally recognized structural engineer who has led several of our city's largest infrastructure projects, recently stated in an interview that such early-intervention educational programs do not yield long-term neurological benefits. Given Dr. Vance's distinguished record of analytical excellence, we must conclude that this program is a waste of taxpayer money.

The reasoning in the city council member's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it does which of the following?

  1. relies on the judgment of an authority whose area of expertise is not relevant to the issue at handAnswer
  2. B
    treats a condition that is required for a successful outcome as a condition that is sufficient to produce that outcome
  3. C
    infers that one phenomenon causes another merely from the fact that the two phenomena are correlated
  4. D
    uses a key term in two logically distinct senses without providing a definition for either
  5. E
    mistakenly assumes that a characteristic of an individual part of a group must apply to the group as a whole

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument relies on the judgment of an authority whose area of expertise is not relevant to the issue at hand.
The argument commits an 'Appeal to Unqualified Authority' fallacy. The author asks the reader to accept a claim about early-childhood neurological development based entirely on the opinion of a structural engineer. While the engineer may be an expert in infrastructure, this expertise is wholly irrelevant to the biological and psychological sciences required to evaluate a cognitive development program.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the early-childhood cognitive development program is a waste of taxpayer money.
Understanding the conclusion establishes what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the primary premise used to support the conclusion.
The sole piece of evidence is the testimony of Dr. Vance, who claims the program will not yield long-term neurological benefits.
We must evaluate how the premise logically connects to the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the validity of the premise as it relates to the conclusion.
Dr. Vance is cited as a 'structural engineer' with a 'distinguished record of analytical excellence.' However, structural engineering has no connection to neurological health or cognitive development.
Identifying the mismatch between the expert's field and the subject of the claim reveals the logical flaw.
4
Match the identified flaw with the correct abstract description in the answer choices.
The flaw is an illegitimate appeal to authority, which matches the option describing reliance on an expert whose expertise is irrelevant.
LSAT flaw questions require translating specific argumentative errors into abstract logical descriptions.

Key Concept

Appeal to Unqualified Authority
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

More questions from this topic