Q8 - Robinson: Wexell says the museum

[Couturiernyc]

Can someone please explain this flaw? Seems like straw man.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post !

This argument is kind of a straw man, since the author doesn’t attack Wexell’s point at all (the props are meaningless outside of a performance). Instead, he attacks an imaginary point (how can we make these props available to the public?)

(B) Captures this exactly.

The wrong answer choices all describing classic flaws that are not happening here. Get to know these answer choices – they describe very specific reasoning errors that you should learn to recognize.

(A) Is incorrect – the author does not base his claim on anecdotal evidence.
(C) Describes an ad hominem argument. This would be the right answer to an argument that said something like “My opponent was mean to his dog, therefore we cannot take his policy ideas seriously.”
(D) Absence of evidence = evidence of absence. This would be correct if the argument said something like “my opponents have failed to sufficiently prove that God exists, therefore there is no God.”
(E) Talks about reversed logic. This would be right if the argument said something like “Every rabbit is a mammal. Sally is a mammal. Therefore she’s a rabbit.”

--Rina

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

Hello!
I got this question right by eliminating all the other answer choices.
However, I'm still not really sure why B is the answer, even though it is better than all the others.

Say, one person makes an argument based on one premise.
Can't another person make an opposite argument based on another premise, not related to the premise used by the first person?
Can't the second person give a different reason for making the opposite argument?

For example,
A says, reading is important children. Therefore, reading should be mandatory.
B says, exercise makes children happy. Therefore, reading should not be mandatory.

Or is Robinson's argument flawed because there is no connection between those items being available to the public and the museum's choice of spending money, like who said they have to be available to the public?

I need some more help with this problem.
Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

It's perfectly legal to debate someone by bringing up a new consideration that might outweigh the strength of the author's premise.

PERSON 1: Kids who read a lot become much more patient adults. Thus, kids should read at least five hours a day.

PERSON 2: Yes, but kids who exercise a lot become much more healthy adults. And there aren't enough hours in a child's schedule to read five hours a day while also exercising a lot. Thus, kids should not read at least five hours a day.

That is not a Straw Man. The author is implicitly acknowledging the benefit of reading but is bringing up a new consideration that might outweigh that benefit.

Robinson's response to Wexell is not of the same kind.

Wexell said:
MUSEUM WASTED MONEY, because these old props and costumes have no artistic significance unless they're used in a performance.

Robinson said:
MUSEUM DIDN'T WASTE MONEY. The old props and costumes won't be used in a performance, but this was the only way of making them available to the public.

Wexell would just say,
"Why do we give a crap about making them available to the public? Didn't you hear me a second ago say that these things have no artistic significance unless they're used in a performance?"

The fact that Robinson concedes that these old items won't be used in a performance and still thinks there's value in a museum displaying them makes it seem like he isn't hearing/addressing Wexell's concern that the museum would thus be displaying something with no artistic significance.

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

I was gone for something else, and now I’m back for real for the LSAT.

And I actually read it again today, and I see the flaw. I was like what? to Robinson.

Thank you very much for your help!
Your answer was clear and made sense!

[JonghyukJ247]

It's perfectly legal to debate someone by bringing up a new consideration that might outweigh the strength of the author's premise.

PERSON 1: Kids who read a lot become much more patient adults. Thus, kids should read at least five hours a day.

PERSON 2: Yes, but kids who exercise a lot become much more healthy adults. And there aren't enough hours in a child's schedule to read five hours a day while also exercising a lot. Thus, kids should not read at least five hours a day.

That is not a Straw Man. The author is implicitly acknowledging the benefit of reading but is bringing up a new consideration that might outweigh that benefit.

Robinson's response to Wexell is not of the same kind.

Wexell said:
MUSEUM WASTED MONEY, because these old props and costumes have no artistic significance unless they're used in a performance.

Robinson said:
MUSEUM DIDN'T WASTE MONEY. The old props and costumes won't be used in a performance, but this was the only way of making them available to the public.

Wexell would just say,
"Why do we give a crap about making them available to the public? Didn't you hear me a second ago say that these things have no artistic significance unless they're used in a performance?"

The fact that Robinson concedes that these old items won't be used in a performance and still thinks there's value in a museum displaying them makes it seem like he isn't hearing/addressing Wexell's concern that the museum would thus be displaying something with no artistic significance.

So basically, Wexell is saying that the museum should have bought cheaper ones right?

And Robinson's argument should address that issue.

Is my understanding correct?