PT57.S2.Q15 - Carla: Professors at public universities

Gunningfor121

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-15/

The answer to this question is A. I understand why the other answer choices are wrong, but I have a hard time accepting A because David literally concedes Carla's premises... I don't think he can then be considered to be ignoring any part of her answer. That doesn't make any sense to me. If someone can help me out, I'd appreciate it!

Admin note: edited title

drbrown2

His concession is empty because he asks why resources should be devoted despite conceding the points Carla makes that answer the question. It's like, "okay I understand why and how the things you just said are beneficial, but why should we believe they are beneficial?" Just because he concedes what she said may be true doesn't mean he was paying attention.

Just because someone says "you might be right" doesn't mean they are actually agreeing with the person or even listening to what they have said. You might respond to this comment by saying "okay even if you're right that David can concede Carla's premise and still be ignoring what she is saying, why should we believe that David is ignoring Carla's reasoning? He said she might be right?" In other words, I imagined this conversation as Carla's comments going right over David's head, but he still tried to continue their debate.

Gunningfor121

@drbrown2 What a bizarre flaw. I don't think I've ever seen this type before.

drbrown2

@Gunningfor121 I agree it is definitely weird. I read flaw questions and look for the weaknesses in arguments. Flaws oftentimes overlap. However, this question doesn't have one of the common argument flaws from the core curriculum.

I think the flaw is most similar to "attacking the source" flaws, except instead of attacking the source David ignores the support for Carla's argument. It would be super obvious if David said "You may be right about the benefits of paid leave for research, but why should we believe you and devote resources towards supporting professors? After all, you are a professor at a public university!"

There are tons of ways you can screw up an argument that aren't listed in the curriculum, but if you focus in on the conclusion and support structure they should be somewhat obvious.

Leah M B

Wow, I don't know the difficulty rating of this one but it is tough. I generally read the stimulus and can have a pretty good idea of the flaw before reading the answer choices, but that's not true on this one. Process of elimination would have quickly gotten me down to A and D as options, and then A fits best although I mostly agree with what you are saying.

It kind of reminds me of a circular argument. Basically the answer to David's question is in Carla's answer. I can imagine a sort of neverending loop...

David: why should we let professors take time off from teaching?
Carla: because doing research makes them better teachers.
David: but why should we use our limited resources to have them not teach?
Carla: because they become better teachers!!

And so on and so on until Carla pulls all her hair out because David hasn't been listening to a damn thing she's said. Like, the answer is right there David, duh.

I do think there's an argument that David is implying Carla's reason isn't good enough - just because it makes them better teachers doesn't mean it's the best use of their limited resources. However, I think maybe that's the catch of the flaw. Our tendency is to sort of fill in the blank. Since Carla gave clear reasoning, David must be saying that the reason isn't good enough, right? However, he never actually said that. His argument as it stands is simply that there isn't a reason to devote resources to it, which is ignoring Carla's argument that she just made. Ergo, A is correct. This is definitely an odd one that doesn't totally fit the usual formula, but it's definitely good to see and practice with these types of questions.

Harvey_l

yeah sometimes they leave really tricky flaws that arent categorized by a certain flaw type, which is why I was taught to face flaws with a semi-flexible mentality because a flaw might be obvious, but they can not have that flaw in the answers and hit you with a really obscure one!!

keets993

So Carla is basically saying [Conclusion] Professors should receive paid leave. [Premise] Research is beneficial.

David is accepting the premise, by itself, that research is beneficial. Or, well he conceded that, even if what you say about research is beneficial, then why should we accept your conclusion? It almost looks like, at first glance, he's practicing LSAC-verified reasoning by accepting the premise but suggesting that the premise doesn't actually support the conclusion. However, that's not what David is saying. He's saying, hey ok even if I accept your thing about research...I don't know why professors should receive paid leave. Carla would respond with "??? I just told you WHY because research is beneficial."

An analogous argument would be something along lines of, politician 1 [Conclusion] we should lower our carbon emissions because [premise]carbon emissions damages the environment, and we need to protect the environment. Meanwhile politician 2 goes "Even if what you say about carbon emissions damaging the environment is true, why should our limited resources be used to lower carbon emissions?"

I think I have seen something before to this grounds where person B ignores person A's statement or ask something that is already answered by person A. Hopefully, I can think of it soon and share it here.

nye8870

strawman?