medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A commentator argues: "There is a well-known principle that one should give up a belief as soon as adequate evidence tells against it. But the moment we set aside that one rule, it becomes plain that the formation of beliefs is governed by no rules whatsoever. Belief, in the end, is simply a matter of personal temperament."
The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it
- takes a single rule for when to discard a belief to be the only rule that could possibly govern belief at all.
- plainly conflates the continued survival of a person with the continued survival of that same person's beliefs.
- assumes, without any warrant whatsoever, that ordinary people are wholly indifferent to whether their beliefs are true.
- shifts back and forth between two quite different senses of the phrase 'adequate evidence' as the argument proceeds.
- relies throughout on the testimony of supposed experts whose authority in the relevant field is never once established.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ