Q17 - Hospital executive: At a recent

[dan]

17. (B)
Question Type: Identify the Flaw
This argument is flawed because of the use of evidence from a limited perspective. The hospital executive uses the testimony of computer experts (with a limited set of expertise) in order to make a conclusion about what the hospital’s main priority should be (a very broad strategic decision). Answer (B) identifies this flaw.

(A) is incorrect. A problem is introduced, but the cause of that problem is not discussed.
(C) is incorrect. Confusing correlation with causation is indeed a common flaw, but it is not the issue with this argument.
(D) is tempting (unrepresentative sample, or inadequate sample size, is often used as a flaw on the LSAT), but in this case we know nothing about how the computer experts came to their conclusion about the biggest threat facing large institutions. The nature of the sample is unknown.
(E) just isn’t true. This inference is not made.


#officialexplanation

[theanswer21324]

The Manhattan books say that we should take premises at their word, but isn't (B) attacking the premise? If the computer experts say that the most significant threat hospitals face is data breach, why should there be grounds to criticize his statement/expertise?

[maryadkins]

GREAT question. You're absolutely right that you don't want to attack the premise, and this one comes very close to doing just that. The reason it doesn't is subtle: (B) doesn't attack the actual premise, which is the hospital executive citing the computer experts' findings and then relying on them, herself. If (B) had read, "The hospital executive is lying," or "The hospital executive is wrong about what the experts said," that would be more in line with actually undermining the premise. But (B) actually tells us that the executive is relying on insufficient information to support her conclusion. That's a fair criticism.

Definitely keep looking out for answer choices that attack (or boost) the premise; they're almost always traps!

[513852276]

Is the correct answer subject to "ad hominem", as it attacks the source of argument?

[andrewgong01]

I am still not understanding "b" as the answer.

When doing the problem, I thought the main flaw was "most significant threat" --> "highest priority" where threat = priority is the link. But I did not see a choice linking the two.

However I am not sure as to where in the passage do we know the testimony of expertise is not shown to give broad support for the claim. Is it because the experts are in computer and this is a hospital; hence, the expertise is not 'correct'? My original reasoning during the test when seeing this choice was that they were experts within a hospital's IT infrastructure and hence they are experts in the field

[ohthatpatrick]

You're right -- there IS a bit of a language shift from "most significant threat" to "highest priority".

We could say
"the argument takes for granted that addressing the most significant threat to an organization should be the highest priority for that organization"

Had that answer appeared, it would be accurate and thus correct.

But try not to limit your thinking on Flaw questions to term shifts. Most Flaw problems are fishing for more conversational objections; they are less about language math.

If you hear a term shift, note it, but continue to think about how you might argue the Anti-Conclusion.

Given what we heard, how could we argue that
"Protecting confidentiality is NOT our highest priority?"

We might say, "Well, did other people at the conference agree that the most significant threat was stealing confidential data? Did law enforcement experts say that the most significant threat is terrorist attacks? Did financial experts say that the most significant threat is too much borrowing / insolvency?"

In short, we only heard ONE group's opinion on the highest priority, and now we're suddenly just moving forward as though their opinion is necessarily the right one.

The correct answer isn't suggesting that the computer experts are unqualified to talk about hacking people's confidential data. It's suggesting that computer experts are unsurprisingly emphasizing THEIR area of concern. There are LOTS of different problems that a large institution, such as a university or hospital, might have, and would computer experts be aware of all those problems and know how to weigh their relative importance?

It's kinda like if I said:
"At a recent convention for wedding vendors, several wedding cake experts maintained that the most important part of every wedding ceremony is the wedding cake. In light of this advice, we should make getting the best possible wedding cake our highest priority."