Discussion
The hospital executive’s argument is most vulnerable to
which one of the following objections?
*This question is included in Sample Lesson Set 3: Difficult Questions, question #3
| (A) | The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 04/11/2011 23:57
I disagree with the answer given as the correct option for this question. How can a group of computer experts discussing the risks of unauthorized access to patient medical information (which is electronic information, or the computer experts wouldn't even be asked for their opinion) be too broad for expertise? They are stressing an important data security threat that all computer IT experts are familiar with - and which exists or any computer network, but tremendously so for larger institutional networks. The comment from the exec states the obvious - the importance of patient privacy- something which is a standard in all medical settings. Vulnerabilities for unauthorized access in computer data networks doesn't imply that the medical staff doesn't already prioritize patient privacy. The comment is not a proposed solution, it is just restating the problem identified by the computer experts, who are fully qualified to assess the likelihood of a security breach.
Posted: 04/12/2011 18:00
This question is nasty. It's a Flawed Reasoning question.
First, it's important that we note that the person making the argument is a hospital executive. Your next step is to isolate the conclusion: the executive has concluded that the computer experts have correctly set the HIGHEST priority for the hospital.
Now we need to look at the support for that conclusion, and figure out what the reasoning error is.
The support for the conclusion is that the computer experts have asserted that the LARGEST threat facing hospitals and universities is unauthorized access to personal data. This should raise the question "how do experts in computer know what the largest threat to UNIVERSITIES and HOSPITALS is?" What if the largest threat is actually the possibility of a labor dispute or a change in public policy? In light of this objection, it should be clear that choice B is correct.
The trickiest part about this question is that it doesn't contain an actual fallacy, like "appealing to authority" or "inferring causation from correlation". It simply contains a questionable judgment, and that makes the error harder to identify. Therefore, you really have to rely on the process of elimination for this question.
First, it's important that we note that the person making the argument is a hospital executive. Your next step is to isolate the conclusion: the executive has concluded that the computer experts have correctly set the HIGHEST priority for the hospital.
Now we need to look at the support for that conclusion, and figure out what the reasoning error is.
The support for the conclusion is that the computer experts have asserted that the LARGEST threat facing hospitals and universities is unauthorized access to personal data. This should raise the question "how do experts in computer know what the largest threat to UNIVERSITIES and HOSPITALS is?" What if the largest threat is actually the possibility of a labor dispute or a change in public policy? In light of this objection, it should be clear that choice B is correct.
The trickiest part about this question is that it doesn't contain an actual fallacy, like "appealing to authority" or "inferring causation from correlation". It simply contains a questionable judgment, and that makes the error harder to identify. Therefore, you really have to rely on the process of elimination for this question.
Posted: 07/02/2012 09:25
I found this question delightfully sneaky. Indeed, the process of elimination led me to the correct answer but the word that initially guided me in the right direction was "highest" priority.
To elaborate, one would reasonably assume that large institutions such as universities and hospitals would rely on concrete research and advice from a variety of sources before setting out low to high priority issues. Computer experts alone would not be good judgement on their part.
Great question once again!
To elaborate, one would reasonably assume that large institutions such as universities and hospitals would rely on concrete research and advice from a variety of sources before setting out low to high priority issues. Computer experts alone would not be good judgement on their part.
Great question once again!
Posted: 01/14/2013 13:22
Thank you for suggesting elimination formula to get the right answer and that's how I eliminated choice B and chose the right answer C. Here is why, I don't think we should go that far to doubt the expertise of the computer experts. And FYI, it is not just one expert, several experts. Even if it is only one expert, we don't have any reason to doubt his expertise unless otherwise provided in the argument. For me the whole issue revolves around the phrase 'confidential data' and 'protection of our clients' confidentiality'. Which vividly make choice C the correct answer.
Posted: 03/27/2014 16:51
Bereket, the LSAC very rarely, if ever, make mistakes in their tests. This question is from a real LSAT. Your logic is wrong. C is not the right answer.
Posted: 01/15/2014 14:06
If you can't see why B is right I can hardly understand why you believe adamantly that C is right. There isn't even a correlation in the question. You can let personal bias get in the way of logical analysis.
Continue disagreeing with the people teaching it though, I'm sure it'll get you good grades on the real one.
Oh and if the logic is hard to follow try a similar scenario:
You have some experts on food flavouring in your candy factory. They are extremely knowledgeable, very experienced and have kept you ahead of your competition. When asked what the biggest threat to the company is they say the lack of innovation in products the last 2 months. That's probably the biggest problem from their expertise and in their line of work, but it might not be a big deal in light of a general strike that seems likely to happen or a competitor undercutting the company massively.
Basically they're competent experts but they aren't experts in every field. You couldn't use them as one source to determine what to focus on because their knowledge is too specific. The president might consult with many groups of experts and then decide what money to put where... In fact this (though a little less direct) is basically how all budgeting is done. You can't let one department of a company run the whole thing, the company works because you have 'experts' everywhere. At least that's how I understand the question.
Continue disagreeing with the people teaching it though, I'm sure it'll get you good grades on the real one.
Oh and if the logic is hard to follow try a similar scenario:
You have some experts on food flavouring in your candy factory. They are extremely knowledgeable, very experienced and have kept you ahead of your competition. When asked what the biggest threat to the company is they say the lack of innovation in products the last 2 months. That's probably the biggest problem from their expertise and in their line of work, but it might not be a big deal in light of a general strike that seems likely to happen or a competitor undercutting the company massively.
Basically they're competent experts but they aren't experts in every field. You couldn't use them as one source to determine what to focus on because their knowledge is too specific. The president might consult with many groups of experts and then decide what money to put where... In fact this (though a little less direct) is basically how all budgeting is done. You can't let one department of a company run the whole thing, the company works because you have 'experts' everywhere. At least that's how I understand the question.