PTJ07.S2.Q17 Flaw confusion?

trisdhaliwal1

I recently did this question and I'm still confused to how it could be choice B.

"the argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim."

What do they mean by sufficiently broad? Sufficiently broad enough? Doesn't it seem like their argument is TOO broad? That large institutions such as universities and schools tend to get hacked therefore security needs to be a top priority?

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-17/

kanel1995

The way I interpreted it, they're saying these experts' expertise does not extend to large institutions like hospital. Yes hacking might be a problem (even a big one), but the most significant? They're computer experts, not hospital experts. What if the most significant threat faced by large institutions is adequate funding, instead?

Ellen Cassidy would call it the "invalid appeal to authority fallacy".

Just how I understand it, hope that helps