What I dispense on flaw questions is a really close reading of the conclusion. I find an accounting of the conclusion's voracity is very important to seeing flaws.
Here we are told in the conclusion that if the results of the trial [referential phrasing] can be repeated then we can give access to people who are authorized and we can block out those who are not authorized.
The problem with a conclusion of that scope is that our evidence (the trial) only tells us about the blocking out of those who are not authorized. We are never given anything to indicate that this new system actually lets people who are authorized gain access. The evidence we are provided only supports half of our conclusion. In theory, the developers of this program could have designed a security system that no one can get into.
Please consider an analogous argument:
I have developed a new lock that is virtually impossible to key-bump and will never open with an unauthorized key in small trials
Therefore, if all goes well in these larger trials, I have developed a new lock that opens with an authorized key and is virtually impossible to key bump and will never open with an unauthorized key.
The flaw here is that I have not given any evidence that the new lock actually opens with an authorized key. I could have, potentially, developed a lock that no key, not even authorized keys can open.
Hope this helps
David
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
3 comments
sometimes
Thanks @nathanieljschwartz435 . LSAC are a bunch of clowns lol. They even put the word sometimes into the AC. That completely threw me off
What I dispense on flaw questions is a really close reading of the conclusion. I find an accounting of the conclusion's voracity is very important to seeing flaws.
Here we are told in the conclusion that if the results of the trial [referential phrasing] can be repeated then we can give access to people who are authorized and we can block out those who are not authorized.
The problem with a conclusion of that scope is that our evidence (the trial) only tells us about the blocking out of those who are not authorized. We are never given anything to indicate that this new system actually lets people who are authorized gain access. The evidence we are provided only supports half of our conclusion. In theory, the developers of this program could have designed a security system that no one can get into.
Please consider an analogous argument:
I have developed a new lock that is virtually impossible to key-bump and will never open with an unauthorized key in small trials
Therefore, if all goes well in these larger trials, I have developed a new lock that opens with an authorized key and is virtually impossible to key bump and will never open with an unauthorized key.
The flaw here is that I have not given any evidence that the new lock actually opens with an authorized key. I could have, potentially, developed a lock that no key, not even authorized keys can open.
Hope this helps
David