LSAT: Flaw in reasoning

[The Jock]

Smith: Meat in the diet is healthy, despite what some people say. After all, most doctors do eat meat, and who knows more about health than doctors do?

Which one of the following is a flaw in Smith"Ÿs reasoning?

(A) Attacking the opponents"Ÿ motives instead of their argument
(B) Generalizing on the basis of a sample consisting of a typical cases
(C) Assuming at the outset what the argument claims to establish through reasoning
(D) Appealing to authority, even when different authorities give conflicting advice about an issue
(E) Taking for granted that experts do not act counter to what, according to their expertise, in their best interest

doctors know about health, doctors eat meat so meat is healthy. I thought smith is generalizing here and picked B as my answer. But I was wrong, OA is different. Can somebody help me to figure out this question.

Question Source: LSAT Papers, But I don't have the official explanations:(

[rishab1988]

Hi thats' cool.I too am solving LSAT CR questions.They are absolutely brutal (almost all of them are 700 level questions).Some according to me are even tougher than 99% GMAT.

The answer according to me is E.

What is the OA?

I will explain my answer if i'm right

[The Jock]

yeah Rishabh, you are right. Please explain.

[rishab1988]

Evidence:

Some people say meat in diet is not healthy
Most doctors eat meat
"who knows more about health than doctors do"

Conclusion:

Meat in diet is healthy.

The question is about flaw is reasoning.

So, look at conclusion and evidence.Does the conclusion involve some logical jump ( an assumption).The Evidence says that most doctors eat food and they know more about health,so the conclusion involves the logical jump that "doctors do what they know".If they didn't you can't conclude meat is healthy!

i.e Most doctors eat meat -> Doctors know more about health-> Meat must be healthy.

A) The opponents in this questions are the "some people".The argument never questions their motives (their intend)

B) Whenever I look at any choice in CR,just like in RC,I try to test the validity of each and every word in the answer choice.In this answer choice the word " typical cases" is outside info.We don't know what consists of typical cases.Also,there is no info in the evidence to suggest that these doctors are typical cases [you are making a self assumption].You are not allowed to do this in either a weakener/flaw in reasoning question or perhaps any CR question.

C) The argument intends to establish that "Meat in diet is healthy".As you can clearly see in the argument as well as in my diagram that this is not assumed at the outset.The argument derives its conclusion from the evidence in the second line " After all...do?"

D) What authority is this statement talking about? This statement is totally irrelevant.

E) This is the correct answer.It is a correct match for our assumption (negation).This statement in simple words means that "Experts (doctors) do not act counter (opposite) to what, according to their expertise ( knowledge about health), is in their best interest (their health)".


I hope I have provided a good enough explanation for my answer

[shovan85]

Smith: Meat in the diet is healthy, despite what some people say. After all, most doctors do eat meat, and who knows more about health than doctors do?

Which one of the following is a flaw in Smith"Ÿs reasoning?

(A) Attacking the opponents"Ÿ motives instead of their argument
(B) Generalizing on the basis of a sample consisting of a typical cases
(C) Assuming at the outset what the argument claims to establish through reasoning
(D) Appealing to authority, even when different authorities give conflicting advice about an issue
(E) Taking for granted that experts do not act counter to what, according to their expertise, in their best interest

Smith is considering that as doctors take meat and doctors know the best about health, meat is good for health.
OK we agree doctors take meat and doctors know the best about health.
BUT how do we know that doctor is following what is good.
Tell me have not you seen a doctor SMOKING. So is smoking good?
?

A Where are opponents arguments? Vaguely said "despite what some people say".
B What is the sample doctors taking meat or the meat itself? Did Smith consider any specific meat?
C I dont understand this. The more you face difficulty in proving a option correct the more chances that it could be wrong
D No appeal has been made.
E Expert: doctor Assumption: they do not counter what they know [FLAW]