LR Question Forum

[analytic_philosopher]

4. Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value. But the Connorly Report is commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey's largest corporate rival, and early drafts of the report are submitted for approval to Danto Foods’ public relations department. Because of the obvious bias of this report, it is clear that Ocksenfrey’s prepackaged meals really are nutritious.

The reasoning in the consumer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report’s claims are false

(B) draws a conclusion based solely on an unrepresentative sample of Ocksenfrey’s products

(C) fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has to create negative publicity for Ocksenfrey

(D) fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods’ prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than Ocksenfrey’s are

(E) presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods’ public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto Foods’ products

[+] Spoiler

The correct answer is A but I'm wondering why E is incorrect.

---

NB: This question is from the June 2007 test.

[05062014]

The stimulus only concerns itself with a particular report and does not discount the possibility that the Connorly Report may indeed not disapprove of a draft that sheds negative light on Dante Foods in the future. Also, the conclusion attributes a sufficient condition (obvious bias in THIS report) must lead to the necessary condition that the truth of the matter is the opposite of the position in the report. Look for words like obvious and clearly and generally anything that would make someone in real life sound too sure of their position. That is usually where the flaw is.

Happy lefties day

[NoodleyOne]

Don't post full questions. Just give pt, section, and q#.

[analytic_philosopher]

Don't post full questions. Just give pt, section, and q#.

Sorry, I have no idea where this question is from. I found it on an article on this very website: http://www.top-law-schools.com/how-i-sc ... icle2.html

But, for future reference - is there some rule according to which I'm not supposed to post full questions?

[analytic_philosopher]

The stimulus only concerns itself with a particular report and does not discount the possibility that the Connorly Report may indeed not disapprove of a draft that sheds negative light on Dante Foods in the future. Also, the conclusion attributes a sufficient condition (obvious bias in THIS report) must lead to the necessary condition that the truth of the matter is the opposite of the position in the report. Look for words like obvious and clearly and generally anything that would make someone in real life sound too sure of their position. That is usually where the flaw is.

Happy lefties day

Thanks!

The way I was looking at it was that the consumer may not even be correct that the report is biased. He seems to be assuming (without justification) that the report is biased. That's why I thought E.

[05062014]

Never question a premise. You, as the test taker, must treat premises as factually indisputable. 'Because of the obvious bias in this report' = There is a bias in this report. The flaw is what the author assumes based on this premise - which is that 'bias in the report = the statement that the food is devoid of NV' - so the conclusion must be ~(bias in the report) the polar opposite of the direction the bias directs the report in.

[Nova]

Don't post full questions. Just give pt, section, and q#.

Sorry, I have no idea where this question is from. I found it on an article on this very website: http://www.top-law-schools.com/how-i-sc ... icle2.html

But, for future reference - is there some rule according to which I'm not supposed to post full questions?

Don't post copyrighted material on TLS. Don't answer questions to copyrighted material on TLS.

(you should just edit it out of the original post)

Also, check out this resource: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/?si ... 489371cb0f

They have some sort of explanation for nearly all difficult questions archived.

[analytic_philosopher]

Don't post full questions. Just give pt, section, and q#.

Sorry, I have no idea where this question is from. I found it on an article on this very website: http://www.top-law-schools.com/how-i-sc ... icle2.html

But, for future reference - is there some rule according to which I'm not supposed to post full questions?

Don't post copyrighted material on TLS. Don't answer questions to copyrighted material on TLS.

(you should just edit it out of the original post)

Also, check out this resource: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/?si ... 489371cb0f

They have some sort of explanation for nearly all difficult questions archived.

Thanks for the link. Oddly enough, another user PM'd that very same link to me about half an hour ago!

Ok, I don't mind editing it out of the OP but I just assumed that since this "copyrighted" question was already asked and answered on an article on this very website, it would probably be ok to post it. Not true?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/how-i-sc ... icle2.html

Also note: this question is from a test that is available for free on lsac.com

[Nova]

Also note: this question is from a test that is available for free on lsac.com

Ahh yes. June 2007 is the only exception