Question Type:
Weaken
Stimulus Breakdown:
A study split 10 people into 2 groups of 5. One group ate chocolate and drank coffee - they said all the coffee tasted the same. The second group just drank coffee - they said the coffees tasted different. Big Coffee concluded chocolate interferes with coffee tasting.
Answer Anticipation:
Whenever a study is done, I check the sample to make sure it's representative. In this case, the sample size is way too small. While the sample size is rarely a flaw on the LSAT, when it specifically states a number that's this low, I always start there.
Additionally, this conclusion is causal. With such a small sample size, maybe something else was going on with the first group - an alternative cause of them missing the taste of coffee would weaken this conclusion (e.g., what if they all had colds?).
Correct answer:
(D)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) If anything, strengthen. If the groups were randomly assigned, that increases the likelihood that the sample was good.
(B) Strengthen. Repeating a study (especially with a larger group) and getting the same results is a great way to strengthen a conclusion.
(C) Out of scope. Not only is the solid/liquid nature out of scope, we don't even know if the chocolate and coffee in this study conformed to the norm!
(D) Bingo. This answer suggests that the group of five who didn't notice the difference in taste between coffees would have said the same thing even without the chocolate. It sounds like something else is going on besides chocolate.
(E) Out of scope. This answer is dealing with the "control" group, and the argument is more about the chocolate-eating group. That said, the control group is relevant to the conclusion. However, the degree of differences they spotted didn't matter as long as they detected differences, which sets them apart from the chocolate group.
Takeaway/Pattern:
When an argument brings up a study, make sure the sample is representative and sufficiently large. When an argument concludes a causal relationship, look for answers that deal with alternative explanations/causes.
#officialexplanation
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- mshinners
-
Thanks Received: 135
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 367
- Joined: March 17th, 2014
- Location: New York City
-
- christiankson
-
Thanks Received: 3
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 2
- Joined: June 19th, 2014
Q1 - In an experiment, ten people were asked to taste
This is a WEAKEN question, which means that the correct answer choice will weaken the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The first step is to find the core.
Conclusion: Chocolate interferes with one's ability to taste coffee.
Why? (Premise): 5 of the people in a study that were given chocolate with different coffee samples all said they tasted the same as one another. The other 5 people were not given chocolate and could detect the differences in coffee.
What is the gap here? Can we definitively argue that coffee is the ONLY reason that the the 5 people couldn't differentiate between the different coffee samples ? What if these 5 people just happen to have poor functioning taste buds which prevents them from detecting differences in taste of all types of food and drink? Then it could be argued that the chocolate isn't a interfering factor in the 5 people's ability to taste coffee.
So essentially the argument fails to consider alternatives which could also account for the responses.
A) This would strengthen the argument because it minimizes bias through random assignment.
B) This would also strengthen. If similar results were found in a larger group, then it increases the chances that it was the coffee.
C) Irrelevant.
D) Correct Answer . This is similar to the gap we came up with earlier. If the same 5 people that were given chocolate were re tested without chocolate, and STILL could not detect differences, then it greatly weakens the idea that chocolate plays a role. Essentially, when the potential cause (chocolate) is eliminated, the effect (inability to differentiate) remains the same. This weakens the argument.
E) E doesn't weaken. The stimulus tells us that the members of the control group (the group not given chocolate) were each able to detect the differences. The degree to which these differences were tasted is irrelevant.
The first step is to find the core.
Conclusion: Chocolate interferes with one's ability to taste coffee.
Why? (Premise): 5 of the people in a study that were given chocolate with different coffee samples all said they tasted the same as one another. The other 5 people were not given chocolate and could detect the differences in coffee.
What is the gap here? Can we definitively argue that coffee is the ONLY reason that the the 5 people couldn't differentiate between the different coffee samples ? What if these 5 people just happen to have poor functioning taste buds which prevents them from detecting differences in taste of all types of food and drink? Then it could be argued that the chocolate isn't a interfering factor in the 5 people's ability to taste coffee.
So essentially the argument fails to consider alternatives which could also account for the responses.
A) This would strengthen the argument because it minimizes bias through random assignment.
B) This would also strengthen. If similar results were found in a larger group, then it increases the chances that it was the coffee.
C) Irrelevant.
D) Correct Answer . This is similar to the gap we came up with earlier. If the same 5 people that were given chocolate were re tested without chocolate, and STILL could not detect differences, then it greatly weakens the idea that chocolate plays a role. Essentially, when the potential cause (chocolate) is eliminated, the effect (inability to differentiate) remains the same. This weakens the argument.
E) E doesn't weaken. The stimulus tells us that the members of the control group (the group not given chocolate) were each able to detect the differences. The degree to which these differences were tasted is irrelevant.
2 posts Page 1 of 1