LSAT Question Explanation
PT 105, Section 4, Question 23
Parallel FlawArgument structure
Donna must have liked the bronzes from Benin at least as much as the other exhibitions.
Critical reviews say that the Benin exhibit is the most interesting the museum has had in years.
Explanation
Just because critical reviews say it's the most interesting in years doesn't mean Donna has to agree. Donna is allowed to have her own opinion.
The flaw here is appealing to authority (the critics) to try to prove someone's opinion wrong, when an opinion is entirely subjective. Donna can like or dislike whatever she wants and her opinion doesn't have to align with what other people like or dislike.
Answer choices
This is just a valid argument. If the task isn't done and it was assigned to Alice, then she hasn't completed her assignment.
This seems like valid reasoning. Here the argument appeals to an objective fact (when the fire took place) to disprove a claim. The stimulus tried to appeal to critic's opinions to prove someone else's opinion wrong.
This is flawed because the author fails to consider that both of the premises could be true at the same time. But this is a different flaw than the stimulus.
This is the same flaw as the stimulus. It's an improper appeal to the opinion of authority (people who know about fish say this is bad tasting fish). Loren could like the fish even if other people say it's bad. Liking the taste of fish is a subjective opinion, not a fact.
This is similar to (B) in that it appeals to an objective fact in an attempt to disprove a claim.
Assuming this is the only mountain Douglas has climbed or that he didn't climb the tallest in the country at some other time in the past, this is not a flawed argument.