June 2007 LSAT Question Explanations June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR...

June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR - Q4

Video Transcript:

0:06
Question 4 - Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged
0:13
meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value. But the Connorly
0:17
Report is commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey's largest corporate rival,
0:22
and early drafts of the report are submitted for approval to Danto Foods'
0:26
public relations department. Because of the obvious bias of this report, it is
0:31
clear that Ocksenfrey's prepackaged meals really are nutritious.
0:38
So, first step... argument or facts? Clearly we have an argument. It is clear our
0:44
structural indicator. So our conclusion is that Ocksenfrey's
0:48
prepackaged meals really are nutritious. And how do we know that these
0:53
prepackaged meals really are nutritious?
0:57
Well, the Connorly Report suggested that they were virtually devoid of any
1:01
traditional values but this report was commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey's
1:06
largest corporate rival and the early drafts of the report are submitted
1:12
for approval to Danto Foods' public relations department. So clearly there's
1:16
a bias in this report. It was commissioned by Danto Foods Ocksenfrey's largest
1:24
corporate rival. So the consumer takes this bias to conclude not that we can question
1:29
the accuracy of the Connorly Report on Ocksenfrey's prepackaged meals but rather
1:37
that Ocksenfrey's prepackaged meals really are nutritious. So again these are
1:44
the premises
1:46
Basically that the report is biased that showed that they were devoid of
1:50
nutritional value. Therefore the prepackaged meals are nutritious. Clearly
1:56
this is a flawed argument.
1:59
The correct conclusion would be that one can question the accuracy of the Connorly
2:05
Report's findings because they are clearly bias. But one cannot take that evidence of bias to
2:13
to conclude the opposite
2:15
that they are really nutritious. This would be equivalent to me saying
2:21
Phillip Morris did a study showing that nicotine is not addictive but clearly
2:27
Phillip Morris has a financial interest in making such a claim. Therefore nicotine
2:33
is addictive. You notice that is flawed logic. I could say that we could question the
2:41
accuracy of Phillip Morris's study but we cannot jump to the opposite of what
2:46
the findings show. And in this case the findings show that it was virtually devoid of
2:54
nutritional value. I take a bias to conclude that the meals really are nutritious. So going to the
3:01
questions stem. The reasoning in the consumers' argument is most vulnerable to criticism
3:05
on the grounds that the argument. Most vulnerable to criticism. So this is an
3:12
errors of reasoning question. Asking us to identify the flaw in the argument. So
3:21
let's take a look at (A). Treats
3:23
evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's
3:29
claims are false. And you notice that (A) is exactly what we talked about. It
3:36
takes the bias to conclude not that the Connorly Report's claimes could be questioned but
3:44
rather that they are false devoid of nutritional value to conclude that the
3:48
meals really are nutritious. Obviously saying that it's false that they are virtually devoid of
3:55
nutritional value. So (A) here would be the correct answer. However let's make sure. Let's
4:01
quickly check the remaining and choices. (B) draws a conclusion based solely on a
4:06
unrepresentative sample of Ocksenfrey's products. And you notice that doesn't
4:11
apply because both our conclusion and our evidence to support the premise are about
4:21
Ocksenfrey's prepackaged meals.
4:25
So it is not based on a unrepresentative sample. That report was about prepackaged
4:32
meals. Our conclusion was about prepackaged meals. So (B) is out. Moving
4:38
to (C). Fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as
4:43
much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has to
4:48
create negative publicity Ocksenfrey. Again, completely irrelevant. This is not about
4:52
what Ocksenfrey has motivation to do or not to do. It's about taking this
4:57
study commissioned by Ocksenfrey's largest corporate rival and conclude
5:04
that what it finds about Ocksenfrey's products is actually untrue. So (C) out. (D)
5:13
Fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods' prepackaged meals are not more
5:18
nutritious than Ocksenfrey's are. And true it does fail to provide evidence
5:24
that Danto Foods'
5:26
prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than
5:29
Ocksenfrey's are. But that's not a flaw in logic. This conclusion is not about
5:33
Danto's foods. It's about Ocksenfrey's products. So (D) does not apply. And then
5:41
lastly checking (E). Presumes without providing justification that Danto
5:47
Foods' public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was
5:51
hostile to Danto Foods' products. And (E) clearly doesn't apply. The consumer
5:56
does not do that. So would be eliminated. Aagain (A) exactly what we saw here. Just
6:03
because Phillip Morris does a study that shows nicotine is not addictive doesn't
6:07
mean I can take that to conclude that nicotine is addictive.