Q11 - Psychologists observing a shopping mall

[mshinners]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
This question is asking us to weaken the argument in the stimulus.

Break down the Stimulus:
The premises compare the amount of time that drivers spend leaving a parking space in three different situations. Based on the differences in these times, the argument draws a conclusion about drivers feeling possessive of their parking spaces.

Any prephrase?
Notice that the premises are strictly about drivers' actions—how long it takes to leave a parking space—while the conclusion is about the motivation behind those actions. For the conclusion to hold, we have to assume that the actions could only result from that motivation, and aren't caused by something else.

Answer choice analysis:
A) Correct. If something else, like feeling pressure, causes drivers to leave a space more slowly, we can't conclude that possessiveness has anything to do with it.

B) A driver's actions when entering a space might seem relevant, but for this to weaken the argument we have to make additional assumptions. Do we know why the other drivers are waiting, or honking? Why would this make the driver entering the space feel possessive? It's an appealing answer at first glance, but by itself this doesn't weaken the argument.

C) This also seems appealing at first glance, but it only calls part of the argument into question. It doesn't explain why drivers take noticeably longer when someone is honking impatiently as opposed to when someone is waiting quietly.

D) The premises are based on situations where other drivers are, in fact, waiting to enter a space, and the conclusion isn't based on any kind of comparison between malls and parking spaces in general. Answer choice (D) is irrelevant.

E) At best this is similar to answer (C) in that it only addresses part of the comparison, the situations where drivers are honking. What about the difference observed when the other driver is just waiting patiently? And even if most drivers feel angry when someone is honking, does that mean they're not feeling possessive? This doesn't weaken the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern: Notice when an argument presents a comparison in the premises. These arguments will often have a conclusion that seems supported by the comparison, but isn't. In this case, the conclusion is about what caused the difference in times, when in fact there could be other causes.

#officialexplanation

[mit311]

I understand that A provides an Alternate cause for the conclusion but dosen't (C) also provide an alternate cause?

Why is C not also right?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question. Over the years I have adjusted my thinking on questions like this. In the past I saw this question very similar to how you're looking at it. Two events correlated did not mean that one event caused the other. To undermine that argument, simply provide an alternative cause.

Now when I look at a question of this sort I see that the conclusion is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. In this case, your task is to provide an alternative explanation. I know the difference in these two approaches sounds negligible, but it leads to helping avoid an answer choice like (C).

The reason is that answer choice (C) doesn't actually explain the observation. The psychologists observed three different rates. One for when no one is waiting, one for when someone is waiting, and one for when someone honks. Answer choice (C) would explain the difference in time between no one waiting and someone waiting for the parking spot. However, it would not explain the difference when someone honks the horn. Answer choice (A) however, would explain all three different times and so provides an alternative explanation to the observation in the stimulus.

Does that help shed some light on this one?

[Dustin.Jones1984]

This question was one that tripped me up too. I chose answer choice (B). Could you explain why this answer choice is not a viable weakener for the argument in the stimulus?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question. There's two issues with answer choice (B).

First, it's comparing apples with oranges. This answer choice is about drivers entering parking spaces; the argument is about drivers exiting parking spaces.

Second, it attacks the evidence and not the reasoning. The reasoning rests in deriving a conclusion from certain evidence. Challenging the conclusion based on certain evidence would challenge the reasoning, but challenging the evidence alone would not.

Does that make sense and also answer your question?

[haeaznboiyoung]

Wow great explanation mshermn! You've opened my eyes to viewing these weaken questions differently... I just hope I remember your advice and apply it when under timed pressure

[yusangmin]

this is why LSAT ticks me off sometimes..i feel like they are
inconsistent..that is unless im missing something...

isnt the claim that they are PRESSURED an assumption in the first place? how come they toy with us on these kind of assumptions in some questions, and in others (such as this one) we are allowed to assume that they are pressured? what if theyre not pressured at all? and most people only get aggrivated?

my guess is that thats a possible explanation for the situation and time discrepencies...but still..

PLEASE HELP

[arischacter]

this is why LSAT ticks me off sometimes..i feel like they are
inconsistent..that is unless im missing something...

isnt the claim that they are PRESSURED an assumption in the first place? how come they toy with us on these kind of assumptions in some questions, and in others (such as this one) we are allowed to assume that they are pressured? what if theyre not pressured at all? and most people only get aggrivated?

my guess is that thats a possible explanation for the situation and time discrepencies...but still..

PLEASE HELP

As far as I can tell, you haven't differentiated the differences between the question types thoroughly. In weaken questions, you assume that everything the answer choice states to be true. There is a much wider scope than what is allowed for assumption questions. In assumption questions, whatever is outside the core of the argument is out of scope. However, in weaken questions, much more is within the scope.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

this is why LSAT ticks me off sometimes..i feel like they are
inconsistent..that is unless im missing something...

I have gone through periods where I felt exactly like you do, but the secret to reconciling this sometimes apparently discrepant behavior is as yusangmin suggests - slight variations in the question stem, the differences in task depending on question stem, and appropriate expectations for leniency with the meaning of words depending on where you're at in the section can all be really helpful.

For instance, you don't need an answer choice that must be true based on the statements presented in the stimulus when the question stem asks you to find the answer choice that is most strongly supported.

Or on Necessary Assumptions that ask you for something the argument depends on, the correct answer won't be necessary to the conclusion (and that can make it so the Negation Test doesn't sound like it works), but rather to the reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion.

Additionally, knowing certain things like weak answers are preferable to strong answers on Necessary Assumptions, new information in answer choices is good on Strengthen, Weaken, and Explain questions but can problematic on Inference and Necessary Assumption questions.

Finally, there are zones of difficulty that are flexible. Between questions 1-8 think easier, 9-13 are tougher, 14-15/16 aren't so bad, 17-23 can be extremely tough and conceptual, 24-25/26 can be a bit easier again. On easier questions begin by allowing flexibility with the language but tighten up on the meaning of the words when you end up with more than one answer. On tougher questions begin with a tighter reading of the meaning of words, but then allow more flexibility when you end up with no answer.

Hope that helps!

[Shiggins]

I have a question on E. This choice suggest that some drivers feel angry when honked at and this anger will influence amount of time. Is anger being used as being upset over giving up space. Bc then I feel anger is taking on a possessive quality.

I see how A is right but I didn't pick it at first bc I mistakenly read 31 seconds for another car. With that in my mind I ruled A out, If i had carefully seen 39 then it would clearly give an alternate reason and I wouldn't of grudgingly picked E, so bad mistake on my part.

If anyone could help explain E further much appreciated.

[sr]

I think E is wrong because it talks about how drivers take longer to leave when they are honked at. This explains the difference between 39 to 51, but it doesn't explain the difference between 32 to 39.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly right sr, nice work!

While answer choice (E) explains the difference between those who are honked at and those who are not, it does not explain the difference between those who have someone waiting for a space and those who do not. Answer choice (B), on the other hand, explains the latter difference but not the former.

Only answer choice (A) is broad enough to apply to both differences.

[jamesquinnw]

[alandman]

Hi Matt,

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around understanding your reasoning for answer choice C. The stimulus is very clear that the car that honked was waiting for the driver to come out of his/her parking space. Hence, in the way I understand the reasoning, answer choice C certainly accounts for this.

I think what makes answer choice C wrong is the word "nearby". We have no indication in the stimulus of the distance of the waiting cars. In other words, answer choice C only weakens the argument if we assume, like common sense would dictate, that the all the cars were in close proximity to the driver exiting the parking spot. However, the argument leaves the possibility that this isn't the case -- the waiting cars weren't nearby, hence not weakening the argument.

What do you think?

Good question. Over the years I have adjusted my thinking on questions like this. In the past I saw this question very similar to how you're looking at it. Two events correlated did not mean that one event caused the other. To undermine that argument, simply provide an alternative cause.

Now when I look at a question of this sort I see that the conclusion is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. In this case, your task is to provide an alternative explanation. I know the difference in these two approaches sounds negligible, but it leads to helping avoid an answer choice like (C).

The reason is that answer choice (C) doesn't actually explain the observation. The psychologists observed three different rates. One for when no one is waiting, one for when someone is waiting, and one for when someone honks. Answer choice (C) would explain the difference in time between no one waiting and someone waiting for the parking spot. However, it would not explain the difference when someone honks the horn. Answer choice (A) however, would explain all three different times and so provides an alternative explanation to the observation in the stimulus.

Does that help shed some light on this one?

[griffin3575]

Here is an easy way to eliminate C:

Arg:
- car waits quietly -39 seconds
- car honks - 51 seconds
- no car waiting - 32 seconds

C basically states that if another car is waiting nearby, it takes longer for the driver to back out of the space(and is more difficult). Well, based purely on the amount of time it took the drivers to back-out, C coincides with the argument because the shortest back-out time occurred when there was no car waiting. C essentially just gives us further evidence in support of something we already know and thus doesn't weaken the argument.

[amiraly]

On the contrary however, letter choice (c) does explain all three observations by the psychologists theoretically:

--> It states ".....more difficult and time-consuing for a driver to maneuver a car out of a parking space if another car waiting to enter that space is nearby"
--> If a car is nearby they ca be honking or making the person trying to leave feel pressured and although that would be (assuming which is forbidden on the lsat) answer choice A makes assumptions as well
--> In my opinion this is a very poor question the lsat put that has 2 very viable answers and to be honest I have zero idea how the difference in choosing one or the other is a measure of intelligence because they can be both argued for very well. Subjective test for sure.

[maryadkins]

Agreed this question is annoying, but we want to not only explain (as in, given an alternate reason for) the gap between the 32 and the 39 and the gap between the 32 and the 51"”we ALSO need to explain the gap between the 39 and the 51 that isn't the reason given by the argument.

Why would honking make a difference? (C) doesn't explain that. It's the same nearby car. It's already more time-consuming. Why does honking make the delay even WORSE?

(A) explains that by suggesting that the honk would pose additional pressure.

Thorny one...

[Frozhend]

I eliminated answer choice C differently.

My understanding was that:

- It took 32 seconds to leave when no one was waiting
- It took 39 seconds to leave when someone is waiting
- It took 51 seconds to leave when someone honks

Answer choice A gives us a different reason weakening the original reasoning of being possessive (that people are under pressure).

Answer choice C, on the other hand, explains that it's harder to maneuver when another car is nearby (so the driver is already leaving at this point). The argument mentioned that drivers spent x amount of time to leave and x depends on the presence of others. I was thinking something along the line of who cares how long it takes the drivers to maneuver as that does not explain anything about how long it took him to leave.

For example, maybe it took 32 seconds to leave the space when another car is nearby, but the argument never said that the presence of other cars added 7 or 19 more seconds in the form of maneuvering time. It simply said drivers took 32, 39, and 51 seconds to leave but never mentioned if that included or did not include maneuvering time.

[76401551]

Exactly right sr, nice work!

While answer choice (E) explains the difference between those who are honked at and those who are not, it does not explain the difference between those who have someone waiting for a space and those who do not. Answer choice (B), on the other hand, explains the latter difference but not the former.

Only answer choice (A) is broad enough to apply to both differences.

This is not an "Explain the Difference" question, so maybe it does not need to cover both difference. Any other reason to eliminate E?

[hamham]

I have a question on (D).

The premise talks about the shopping mall parking lot, and the conclusion is about more general parking spaces. So wouldn't (D) weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion if parking spaces in shopping mall parking lots are unrepresentative of parking spaces in general?

Thank you.