Passage Summary: A study with a tiny sample size claims chameleons sunbathe for Vitamin D. Critics say the sample is too small to be reliable, but the biologist says we should trust the study anyway because the scientist who wrote it is very talented.

Conclusion: The critics are incorrect to doubt the results of the chameleon study.

Reasoning: The author of the study is a highly respected professional with a long history of excellent work.

Analysis: The biologist commits a 'Source Argument' or 'Appeal to Authority' flaw. Instead of addressing the critics' legitimate concern about the small sample size, the biologist tries to validate the study's findings based solely on the researcher's reputation. A researcher's past success doesn't automatically make a statistically thin study valid. Look for an answer choice that identifies this shift from the evidence itself to the character or credentials of the person providing it.