Self-study
Structure: Counter-Argument
The biographer argues that although Arnold's belief that his colleagues were trying to make him look inadequate and their congratulations were insincere "may seem irrational," it is in fact not. In the biographer's view, Arnold's belief about his colleagues is "clearly justified," because it is a consequence of Arnold's sister making fun of his ambitions and achievements when he was younger.
Analysis: Flawed Argument Pattern
The biographer confuses having a reason for a belief with having a valid reason for a belief — i.e., a reason that justifies a belief as "rational." It may be true that Arnold's early experiences with his sister are the reason for his belief about his colleagues. That doesn't mean those experiences are a valid reason for his belief, still less that his belief is a rational one. So we're probably looking for an answer choice with a similar structure: someone is shown to have some reason for an apparently irrational belief they hold, and that reason is taken to justify their belief when it in fact does not.
17.
The flawed reasoning in the ██████████████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
The fact that ███ ██████████ █████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████████ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████
Incorrect. (A) gives us an external fact about executives that we are told justifies Sheldon's prior belief — but we are never told whether Sheldon knows or believes that fact. In other words, the fact about the executives is not the reason for Sheldon's belief. Meanwhile, the pattern we're looking for based on the stimulus is for an earlier experience to be provided as the reason for someone's current belief, and for that belief to be taken as justified as a result.
b
Emily suspected that ██████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███ █ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████
Incorrect. Like (A), (B) brings in an external fact, which the stimulus never does. The pattern in the stimulus was to conclude that just because Arnold had a prior experience that led to his current belief, his current belief is justified. Meanwhile, (B) says that an external fact, in addition to Emily's prior experience, confirms that Emily's belief is justified. This is a different structure than what we're looking for.
c
As a child, ████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████
Correct. Like the stimulus, (C) states that someone's current belief has its roots in a prior experience — and that alone is taken to fully "justify" their current belief, when the experience actually does not rationally justify the current belief. Joan's experience of being punished by her father for playing with his cat does not rationally lead to the claim that cats in general do not make good pets, just as Arnold's experience of his sister making fun of him does not rationally lead to the conclusion that all his colleagues are duplicitous.
d
Studies show that ████ ███████ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████████
Incorrect. The stimulus argued that one person's current belief was "justified" because it had its roots in that person's earlier experiences. (D) tries to argue that a generic belief held by many people is justified because of apparent evidence from some studies, not because of something those people have themselves experienced.
e
Sumayia’s father and ██████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███ ██ █ ██████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██████████
Incorrect. Sumayia's belief about her friend Antony could actually be rationally connected to her prior knowledge from her childhood experiences. Notice that the beliefs in the stimulus and in (C) generalize from highly specific prior experiences: Arnold believes that all his colleagues are duplicitous because his sister used to make fun of him; Joan believes that cats in general do not make good pets because she was punished for playing with her father's cat.
In (E), however, Sumayia has a broader experience with several pianists, which is potentially a rational basis to come to a specific conclusion about one person, her friend Antony. So Sumayia's prior experiences might plausibly justify her belief about Antony. Thus, (E) differs from the stimulus and from the correct answer choice in that there's a logical connection between the earlier experience and the current belief.