Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has dangerous side effects has recently been criticized by a prominent ph...

SamA on February 14, 2020

Hello @jlivingston1028,

Good question!

The journalist argues that the physician does not provide a valid criticism of the book.
Why?
Because physician is employed by the drug company, and therefore has personal reasons to deny the claims in the book.

This is a common reasoning flaw on the LSAT. We need to address the argument itself, not the person making it. The journalist assumes that the argument is not legitimate, based only on the physician's possible bias. There is no discussion of the physician's evidence.

This flaw is best expressed by answer choice D. The physician certainly could have solid evidence, even if she has a personal reason to release it.

What is wrong with B? It is very broad. The journalist is talking specifically about a physician who works for the company, not someone "remotely associated." Also, the journalist never claims that the physician is "unable to fairly weigh evidence." Maybe he believes that the physician is able, but is deliberately ignoring evidence. We shouldn't speculate about the journalist's reasoning beyond what is given to us in the stimulus.