LSAT Explanation PT 24, S3, Q16: K, a research scientist, was accused

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following contains questionable reasoning that is most similar to that in the argument above? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The passage presents an argument about K, a research scientist who was accused of having falsified laboratory data. The conclusion of the argument is that the accusation should be dismissed. The premises supporting this conclusion are: 1) the original data in question have disappeared, and 2) data from K's more recent experiments have been examined and clearly none of them were falsified.

The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: The original data in question have disappeared.

Premise 2: Data from K's more recent experiments have been examined and clearly none of them were falsified.

Conclusion: Therefore, the accusation should be dismissed.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there any connection between the original data and the recent experiments that would indicate K's behavior in the past?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Parallel Flaw (PF) question, which asks us to identify the answer choice that contains questionable reasoning most similar to that in the argument above.

Answer Choices:

a) L, an accountant, was charged with having embezzled funds from a client. The charge should be ignored, however, because although the records that might reveal this embezzlement have been destroyed, records of L's current clients show clearly that there has never been any embezzlement from them.

This answer choice parallels the original argument, as it contains the same questionable reasoning. Just like in the original argument, the conclusion (the charge should be ignored) is based on the fact that the evidence from the past is missing and that the current evidence shows no wrongdoing. This is the correct answer.

b) M, a factory supervisor, was accused of failing to enforce safety standards. This accusation should be discussed, because although the identity of the accuser was not revealed, a survey of factory personnel revealed that some violations of the standards have occurred.

This answer choice does not parallel the original argument, as it presents additional evidence (violations of safety standards) that supports the accusation, rather than evidence that seems to dismiss it.

c) N, a social scientist, was charged with plagiarism. The charge is without foundation because although strong similarities between N's book and the work of another scholar have been discovered, the other scholar's work was written after N's work was published.

This answer choice does not parallel the original argument, as the evidence provided (the other scholar's work being published after N's work) actually disproves the accusation, rather than just providing unrelated evidence.

d) O, an auto mechanic, has been accused of selling stolen auto parts. The accusation seems to be justified since although no evidence links O directly to these sales, the pattern of distribution of the auto parts points to O as the source.

This answer choice does not parallel the original argument, as it presents circumstantial evidence (the pattern of distribution) that supports the accusation, rather than evidence that seems to dismiss it.

e) P, a politician, has been accused of failing to protect the public interest. From at least some points of view, however, the accusation will undoubtedly be considered false, because there is clearly disagreement about where the public interest lies.

This answer choice does not parallel the original argument, as the evidence provided (disagreement about the public interest) is not related to the specific accusation against P, and it does not suggest that the accusation should be dismissed based on missing past evidence or positive current evidence.

In conclusion, the correct answer to this Parallel Flaw question is answer choice A, as it contains questionable reasoning most similar to that in the original argument.