PT59.S2.Q15 - key word shift flaw?

emmorens

Admin Note: Edited to remove the Question Stem and Answer Choices. Please review the Forum Rules. Explanation Video: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-15/

I'm highly concerned as I did not note shifting in meaning of the word 'anarchy' to be a flaw in this question stem. I am trying to understand why exactly the key word's shift in meaning weakens this argument? I realize that it shifts in the main conclusion when they use it as an example of chaos but how exactly does that make it vulnerable?

My thoughts: if the author shifts in this meaning maybe we can't trust the author in general? < sorry if that sounds stupid I'm just trying to understand why so I can get inside the LSAT writers heads.

Thanks to anyone who helps me out!

canihazJD

This is a pretty difficult question... likely the curve breaker for that section. The shift is hard to see because of our own bias.

OPA: Anarchy - absence of government
Bowers: Anarchy - chaos

Target: Our assumption that anarchy = chaos.

if the author shifts in this meaning maybe we can't trust the author in general?

Yes! That is why this is a flaw. It also sometimes appears as uncertain use of of a term/concept. For an argument to be valid, the key terms/concepts have to be discussed in a consistent manner or the integrity of the argument is undermined.

Classic example (credit: powerscore):

Board Member: “We need to fully exploit our available resources if this company is going to maximize profits in the coming year.”

Human Resources Director: “Not so fast. Our employees are one of our most valued resources, and we have a strict policy against exploiting our workers.

hopefulling

Also referred to as the error of Equivocation (a fallacy of ambiguity).
[A definition in a premise is altered to better support the conclusion] ... And this one is so sneaky!!

... in the argument, by changing the meaning of the word, the premise(s)-conclusion connection is weakened by a gap in the meaning change.

In one premise it's defined as one thing (absence of govt), but in the conclusion, it's referred to as something else (the countenance/tolerance of chaos). And as the Loophole book teaches us (not letting words change meaning and all), "What if those two definitions do not mean the same thing?" / What if the (absence of govt) isn't the same thing as (countenances chaos)? That's where the reasoning in this argument is flawed. There's the assumption that (tolerating chaos) is the same thing as (absence of government), that isn't stated/clarified. ... What if the absence of government doesn't lead to chaos? ... (which seems really crazy to write out!, but in LSAT-land, crazy worlds are possible)

hopefulling

Also, P1, P2 & P3 are actually other peoples' arguments and not the author: OPA1A, OPA1B, OPA2 (a specific OP).

• The old 'some people claim that' ... then 'they are mistaken' trick!!!

And what you have as SC and MC is: MC and then P1 (the author's support for believing that the other people are wrong).

(I hope I'm not wrong on this and adding confusion ... sometimes, these are tricky for me!)

---

I think the shift in meaning here, since it occurs between the OPA and the Author's argument is that the Author is saying that they (the other people) are wrong because he believes (he then changes the meaning of anarchy) some belief. He uses the revised definition to support HIS belief, where it might have better, originally, supported the other people's argument. This could have been intentional or unintentional on the make-believe author, we don't know. But, you should only ever judge the relationship between the premise(s) and conclusion and not the (often) ridiculousness being said. I think by being wild and crazy, THAT'S where the test writers are trying to throw us off! They WANT us to make normal assumptions that will hinder our correct response. [Maybe they're trying to make us jump up and scream ad hominems !!] Especially if the Fallacy Fallacy teaches us anything that even the worst arguments might still have a valid/'true' conclusion. ... So, they WANT you to judge the author, but DON'T - judge his crappy argumentative method instead)!!

Hope that helps you understand this question a little more.

LOWERCASE EVERYTHING

I realize that it shifts in the main conclusion when they use it as an example of chaos but how exactly does that make it vulnerable?

first, i want to point out that the author is using the term not as an example of chaos, but is defining chaos as such.
an "example" is "e.g." which is different from what the author has used: "i.e." which means "that is."

I am trying to understand why exactly the key word's shift in meaning weakens this argument?

i think i see that you realize there is an equivocation flaw: the author shifts the meaning of anarchy ("the absence of government") to anarchy ("philosophy that countenances chaos").

but are you wondering how this has a bearing on the conclusion in this specific scenario?
hmm...
i'll try to make a case for it. let me know what you think!

the main conclusion is interesting, because i think it's actually making 2 different claims:
1. "any social philosophy that countenances chaos is anarchy."
2. "any social philosophy that countenances chaos accordingly deserves no further attention."

as another example, if i say:
"anyone who believes in the flat-earth theory, i.e. a moron, deserves no further attention"

i'm essentially making 2 different claims:
1. anyone who believes in the flat-earth theory is a moron.
2. anyone who believes in the flat-earth theory deserves no further attention"

well, i better see support for both claims.

none of these 2 claims are well supported: by claiming #1, author would need to commit an equivocation flaw; by claiming #2, author is concluding "philosophy that countenances chaos → deserves no further attention"

although you can argue that #2 has some support, if you equate chaos and anarchy, you'd still need to be generous with it to conclude "deserves no further attention."

the lsat writer decided to test the flaw in claim #1 .
but by weakening claim #1, the support for claim #2 (which depended on the truth of claim #1) also diminishes.
so regardless, that whole sentence falls apart.