91Ó°ÊÓ

Scicatific research at a certain university was supported in part by an annual grant from a major foundation. When the university's physics department embarked on weapons-related research, the foundation, which has a purely humanitarian mission, threatened to cancel its grant. The university then promised that none of the foundation's money would be used for the weapons research, whereupon the foundation withdrew its threat, concluding that the weapons research would not benefit from the foundation's grant. Which one of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning underlying the foundation's conclusion? (A) It overlooks the possibility that the availability of the foundation's money for humanitarian uses will allow the university to redirect other funds from humanitarian uses to weapons research. (B) It overlooks the possibility that the physics department's weapons research is not the only one of the university's research activities with other than purely humanitarian purposes. (C) It overlooks the possibility that the university made its promise specifically in order to induce the foundation to withdraw its threat. (D) It confuses the intention of not using a sum of money for a particular purpose with the intention of not using that sum of money at all. (E) It assumes that if the means to achieve an objective are humanitarian in character, then the objective is also humanitarian in character.

Step by step solution

01

Identify the Premise and Conclusion

The foundation is supporting the university through a grant. It threatened to stop the grant because of the weapons research. The university promised not to use the foundation's grant for the weapons research, and the foundation assumed that the weapons research wouldn't benefit from its money. This is the foundation's conclusion.

02

Evaluate Foundation's Conclusion

The foundation concluded that the weapons research would not benefit from its grant simply because the university promised not to use the foundation's money for that purpose. This is essentially saying if the exact money isn't used, the research wouldn't benefit, which might not be true if money is fungible.

03

Analyze the Flaw

The flaw lies in the assumption that just because the foundation's money is not directly used for weapons research, the weapons research won't benefit at all. This overlooks the idea that redirecting other funds may still support the weapons research.

04

Select Correct Answer Choice

The correct answer is A. This choice points out that the foundation overlooked the possibility that the availability of its funds for humanitarian use might allow the university to redirect other funds to support the weapons research.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

• Full Textbook Solutions

  Get detailed explanations and key concepts

• Unlimited Al creation

  Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

• Ads-free access

  To over 500 millions flashcards

• Money-back guarantee

  We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

logical reasoning flaw

In logical reasoning, identifying flaws is key to understanding arguments clearly. A logical reasoning flaw occurs when there is a mistake or error in the way a conclusion is drawn from evidence or premises. In the university scenario, the foundation's conclusion was flawed.
The foundation believed its funds weren't supporting weapons research because their specific grant wasn't used directly. However, it ignored the potential for the university to reallocate other resources to replace the foundation's money.

• This is a common error in reasoning where the assumption is that consequences won't follow just because a direct action is avoided.
• By identifying that the foundation's logic was flawed, one can learn how arguments can be improperly constructed.

Recognizing these flaws is essential for anyone studying for the LSAT, as it will help improve their ability to assess arguments more critically.

critical thinking

Critical thinking is all about analyzing arguments deeply and questioning their validity. It's crucial when engaging with complex texts like LSAT questions.
To exercise critical thinking:

• Always question the assumptions: In the example, the foundation assumed funds wouldn't support research. Critical analysis asks whether this is necessarily true.
• Consider alternative explanations: Think about other ways the research might still receive indirect benefits.
• Evaluate evidence thoroughly: Look at whether the supports provided actually hold the argument up without faults.

This mindset allows one to dissect arguments, uncover hidden flaws, and enhance overall decision-making skills. By doing so, students become adept at not only identifying faulty reasoning but also constructing sound arguments themselves.

premise and conclusion analysis

Premise and conclusion analysis is integral to understanding logical arguments. Premises are statements that provide the basis for the argument; conclusions are the assertions drawn from these premises.
In our exercise:

• Premise: The university will not use the foundation’s grant for weapons research.
• Conclusion: The weapons research will not benefit from the foundation’s grant.

Analyzing these elements helps identify if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Here, the assumption is that without direct funding, research cannot progress. However, this fails under scrutiny as funds are not always used linearly in large organizations like universities.
By differentiating between premises and conclusions, students can see how conclusions may not always logically derive from the premises, revealing crucial flaws in reasoning.

argument evaluation

Argument evaluation focuses on the strength and validity of the argument by questioning its structure and the connections between premises and conclusion.
When evaluating arguments like the university’s case:

• Check for logical consistency: Is the conclusion a true representation or misinterpretation of the premises?
• Assess the comprehensiveness: Did the foundation consider all possible influences and implications?
• Examine the reasoning: Does the conclusion rest on any hidden or unstated premises that could undermine it?

By doing so, one can determine if an argument is robust or has weaknesses. In this instance, because funds are fungible, the argument did not hold that weapons research wouldn't be indirectly funded.
Evaluating such arguments effectively can help improve reasoning skills vital for handling complex logical reasoning questions on tests like the LSAT.