This question is what we call a flaw in method of reasoning question where being asked by the question stem to do this

The hospital's executive argument

Hospital executive's argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?

So we're to accuse the argument of having a vulnerability

So the vulnerability is because the argument does something bad

You see they're all verbs here

So we are claiming that the argument has done something that's terrible

So it's slightly different from what we call weakening questions, which is you just go ahead and we can argument here

is the you're you're you're speaking you're

displaying where the vulnerability is

Right, the argument has confused this for that and because of that because because of this confusion

Which you shouldn't really make then, you know, this argument's weak

Faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is what unauthorized access to confidential data. Okay fair enough in light of this testimony

We should make the protection of our clients

Confidentiality our highest right? No, no, no terrible. You should be fired

the premise is this and the conclusion is this right in light of this testimony is the

Structural indicator which we learned about our grammar lessons that tell us what the premise conclusion is

And this is definitely, you know

The first thing you do for any argument is to make sure you know what the premises are what the conclusion is

So you can at least tell where the attempt to support is is, you know, so the direction of the support which way is it flowing?

So this is the break. All right. Now, let's let's think about this. Why is this argument vulnerable?

You you you we learn from our lessons in in weakening questions that you never ever attack the premise

You just can't do that. You have to you have to concede the premise. Yes say despite the fact that the premise is true

I don't see that this I don't see this being true

Increasing the odds of this being true increasing the chance of this being true. So, okay. Why is that?

So we were at a conference. We're all there. We're all executives. We're all there and um,

We we listen to a panel of computer experts and they say that the most significant threat is unauthorized access to confidential

Confidential data. Okay. I mean, yeah, okay unauthorized access to confidential information is important

But you know, I think what's more important is making sure our patients get well and stay alive

So so you cannot take this testimony and therefore make protection of confidential your highest priority. These are just computer experts

They're not public health experts, right? Yes

I know they maintain that this is the most significant threat, but that doesn't mean that this is the most significant threat, right?

Certainly they think so because they say it they maintain that this is the most significant threat

I think the most significant threat would be if I don't know we lost electricity

Right because if we're a hospital we lose electricity then we are completely screwed. So

So perhaps ensuring that we have backup generators and stuff. That's our highest priority. Oh, okay. We already did that

Well, then let's move on to some lower level, you know, making sure we always have staff on hand nurses doctors always there

Those seem very very important. It's even more important than this. So what's wrong this argument?

No, but there's no we don't know what what cause what what cause what solution is it? What's the problem here?

I suppose the problem is unauthorized confidential access data. Okay. What's the cause of that? I don't I mean, I guess hackers

I suppose but do we confuse that with the appropriate solutions?

So you see this is terrible the argument does not do what ace is claiming that the argument is doing

So in our two well, we learn from our flaw lessons that there's a two-step test how to apply it examples applying it

But here in the two-step test it fails the first step, which is it's descriptively inaccurate

It does not actually describe what argument is doing in which case you don't even need to go to the second

Step which is well if it's accurately describing the argument

Is it describing the flaw or the vulnerability and as we can see a just doesn't it doesn't do that b says the argument relies

On the testimony of experts. Well, it does right the argument does rely on that testimony of experts. These are computer experts

We in light of this testimony, we are relying on this testimony. I see do you see so what we're doing here now is

questions like this type

Um flaw questions method reason questions. They use very abstract language

They use language that you need to be able to bring down into the space of the argument

Otherwise, it's just sort of all abstract and like floating around in there. It's very easy for you to confuse things

So when i'm reading this, I think the argument relies on testimony of it

To check to see if this answer choice is going in the right direction whose expertise

computer experts their expertise is in computer technology

Is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim exactly

That's a problem when computer experts maintain that the most significant threat faced by large institutions is this

I don't know that I believe them. I know this is what they're saying. You can't attack the premise

You can't be like, oh actually the computer expert was misquoted. They didn't say that that would be denying the premise

This is saying that the premise is true. It's just not giving the support that you think it's giving

It's not saying what you think it's saying

Computer experts do maintain this but that doesn't mean that this x thing is is the case, right?

That's exactly what makes b correct, right their general claim general claim of uh,

All what is this by large institutions such as university, right?

Like what for large if you're a large institution, this is the most significant threat. That's that's kind of that's crazy

I mean, this is exactly the kind of thing they they put this answer choice here

They're so the writers are totally irresponsible. They just write this stuff here and they're like go for it

Have fun, you know have fun figuring out what this means, right?

And meanwhile, you're just burning all your time argument assumes a correlation what correlation what correlation exists?

So you have to be very familiar with what correlation is and if you do enough outside questions

You will get familiar with what a correlation is correlation are two things that happen together

They're either two phenomenon that are always spotted together or not spot together

So the argument assumes that correlation is evidence that one cause the other this is you know

This is great for a different question. This in fact is the right answer choice. Just not for this question

There are plenty of outside questions that make precisely this mistake correlation does not imply causation

When you see a and b correlated it doesn't mean that a cause b

It doesn't necessarily mean that a cause b or b cause a it could be possibly it could be but

Just just from that alone is not enough to you cannot conclude that a cause b or b cause a but you see there's nothing

About that. We don't have any any notion of our conclusion is not a causation conclusion

But you see it just doesn't it also like a it fails the descriptive accuracy test doesn't describe what argument is doing

So we do draw a general conclusion about a group, right? Do we we should take protection of our client's confidentiality?

So I suppose that's a that's that's a group general conclusion is our clients

Confidentiality is our highest priority based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group that but that's not right. That's not where the are

are

What is it based on? What is our conclusion based on it's based on testimony? It's based on testimony of experts who

Are talking about things that perhaps is beyond their scope of x or definitely beyond their scope of expertise

But it's not based on data about an unrepresented sample that group

See also not descriptively accurate if our premises have been talking about some of our clients, you know, mr

Smith who is a you know billionaire and has a terminal illness and you know, if we don't keep it author

If we don't keep the information confidential, I don't know

Greedy wall street bankers or trade on insider information step speculating on mr

Smith's death or so that will be sort of something about like unrepresented group general conclusion

It looks nothing like this argument but for wrong answer choices, especially for flaw method reasoning answers

This is a point I will talk about again and again in in all these lessons on flaw method reasoning questions

Is you you have to engage with the wrong ones?

You have to ask yourself

What would the argument look like if it matched this answer choice because that's how you see by doing that by forcing this argument?

Contorting it changing and conforming it to this argument is how you get clear on what this this just inherently unclear thing is talking

About this is very general language

you have to have proficiency with general language because you don't have time to to

Think about it like the way we're thinking about it now

You just have to you read this you have to immediately know what this is supposed to look like and then cross it off

The only way to do that is by just endless hours of practice

This is a very very tricky answer choice

It just it just doesn't it's descriptively inaccurate

The argument does not infer that a property belonging to large institution which here the property belonging to large institutions

Is that the most significant threat is unauthorized access to confidential data?

Do you see because so that's the property belonging to large institutions?

We do not the argument does not infer that this thing belongs to all institutions like a mom-and-pop

corner shop that sells sandwiches

Right, because you see because we are concluding

About our hospital we are a hospital. We are a large institution

We are not inferring property belonging to large institutions belong to all institutions

We are simply we're simply inferring that property belonging to large institutions belong to large institutions belong to a large institution 50c

Very very bad argument, but it's tricky

You know, you just read it once read it quickly not really absorbing what it means

You you think that yeah sure this is this could be right I suppose

But I hope you see now that how just terribly wrong answer choice e is

And i'm sure some other argument on lsat does make the mistake that e

Is making and in which case e will be the right answer choice, but not not for this argument

you