LSAT Explanation PT 31, S3, Q23: Reviewer: Although finalism—the view that there

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its flawed reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the reviewer's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In the passage, the reviewer is arguing against finalism, a view that there are purposes in nature. The reviewer claims that a book's arguments against finalism are based on a misunderstanding of the operation of pure chance in nature. Therefore, the reviewer concludes that finalism is more plausible than people have thought. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: The book's arguments against finalism are based on a misunderstanding of the operation of pure chance in nature.

Conclusion: Finalism is more plausible than people have thought.

The flaw in the argument is that just because the book's arguments are based on a misunderstanding, it doesn't necessarily make finalism more plausible. The reviewer is assuming that the book's flawed arguments are the only arguments against finalism and that there are no other valid arguments against it.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Are there any other valid arguments against finalism that the reviewer has not considered?"

Now let's analyze the answer choices. The question type is a Parallel Flaw (PF) question, asking us to identify the answer choice that has flawed reasoning similar to the passage.

a) This answer choice is incorrect because its conclusion is stronger than the passage's conclusion ("it is quite likely" vs. "more plausible"). Additionally, the premise in this choice is based on a lack of tangible evidence, whereas the passage's premise is based on a misunderstanding.

b) This answer choice is incorrect because it doesn't offer a conclusion that a theory is better than currently believed to be based on the reason that someone's critique is ill-founded.

c) This answer choice is correct because it parallels the flawed reasoning in the passage. Both the passage and this choice argue that a view is more plausible than people think because there is a misunderstanding or confusion in the arguments against the view.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because it doesn't offer a conclusion that a theory is better than currently believed to be based on the reason that someone's critique is ill-founded.

e) This answer choice is incorrect because the conclusion doesn't match the strength of the passage's conclusion. Additionally, the flaw in this choice is not that the evidence is bad or based on misunderstanding but that the researchers just didn't consider something.

In summary, the correct answer is C because it parallels the flawed reasoning in the passage, where a view is considered more plausible due to a misunderstanding or confusion in the arguments against it.