LSAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ttunden
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 146
- Joined: August 09th, 2012
Q12 - Many people have been duped
can anyone explain this please, i picked B on this q because i thought by bringing up the new group, medical pro, that she was discrediting the hypothesis that many people are duped due to lack of medical knowledge since the medical professionals are also duped yet lack no medical knowledge
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q12 - Many people have been duped
Hey Ttunden,
On a question like this, it's important to understand the argument as deeply as possible. This is a complex one, so we have to be extra careful.
Conclusion: When Medical Pros are stupid, it's not for the same reason as when regular people are stupid.
Premises: Regular people don't know anything, but medical pros know lots of stuff.
That's the overall argument. Let's take a look at the answers now.
A) This isn't an analogy, because the two groups are DIFFERENT (in an analogy, the two would be the same).
B) There's no hypothesis being argued against here. The author straight up says that there are two different reasons for why normal people and medical pros are susceptible to fraud. Now, if the author had said something like "The reason people fall for fraudulent claims is NOT because they lack medical knowledge, as evidenced by the fact that doctors fall for them, too", then B would be correct. But the author sets forth two separate hypothesis; namely that normal people fall victim because they have no knowledge, and medical pros fall victim for some other reason (it's never stated).
(C) No doubt is cast on their expertise; just look at the last sentence.
(D) This is the answer. "arguing that since two groups are disanalagous in important respects" -- this refers to the regular folks and the medical people, who differ in their knowledge of medical stuff. "there must be different explanations for their similar behavior" -- both of them fall for frauds, so that's the similar behavior, and the "different explanations" is mentioned in the second to last sentence of the passage ("However, the same explanation cannot be given...")
(E) There's no evidence cited against the conclusion itself.
Hope that helps!
-t
On a question like this, it's important to understand the argument as deeply as possible. This is a complex one, so we have to be extra careful.
Conclusion: When Medical Pros are stupid, it's not for the same reason as when regular people are stupid.
Premises: Regular people don't know anything, but medical pros know lots of stuff.
That's the overall argument. Let's take a look at the answers now.
A) This isn't an analogy, because the two groups are DIFFERENT (in an analogy, the two would be the same).
B) There's no hypothesis being argued against here. The author straight up says that there are two different reasons for why normal people and medical pros are susceptible to fraud. Now, if the author had said something like "The reason people fall for fraudulent claims is NOT because they lack medical knowledge, as evidenced by the fact that doctors fall for them, too", then B would be correct. But the author sets forth two separate hypothesis; namely that normal people fall victim because they have no knowledge, and medical pros fall victim for some other reason (it's never stated).
(C) No doubt is cast on their expertise; just look at the last sentence.
(D) This is the answer. "arguing that since two groups are disanalagous in important respects" -- this refers to the regular folks and the medical people, who differ in their knowledge of medical stuff. "there must be different explanations for their similar behavior" -- both of them fall for frauds, so that's the similar behavior, and the "different explanations" is mentioned in the second to last sentence of the passage ("However, the same explanation cannot be given...")
(E) There's no evidence cited against the conclusion itself.
Hope that helps!
-t
-
- LukeM22
-
Thanks Received: 6
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 53
- Joined: July 23rd, 2017
Re: Q12 - Many people have been duped
Was hoping for some quick clarification on why exactly answer B is wrong here.
B initially seemed tempting in that the argument DOES show that an explanation cannot account for everyone (inc. doctors), but is B wrong because it's basically a "straw man" in the sense that it entails the author arguing an argument that never happened (i.e nothing in the stimulus explicitly stated that that explanation can be applied to everyone, therefore, there is nothing subject to refutation through demonstrating that that isn't possible). However, this is not what happened as the argument flows logically. I'm thinking an argument that would allow B to be correct would be much more flawed?
Am I correct in interpreting the second part of answer B as right, but the first part wrong? Apologies if I'm being verbose here.
B initially seemed tempting in that the argument DOES show that an explanation cannot account for everyone (inc. doctors), but is B wrong because it's basically a "straw man" in the sense that it entails the author arguing an argument that never happened (i.e nothing in the stimulus explicitly stated that that explanation can be applied to everyone, therefore, there is nothing subject to refutation through demonstrating that that isn't possible). However, this is not what happened as the argument flows logically. I'm thinking an argument that would allow B to be correct would be much more flawed?
Am I correct in interpreting the second part of answer B as right, but the first part wrong? Apologies if I'm being verbose here.
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q12 - Many people have been duped
The conclusion is that "you can't offer the same explanation for medical pros being duped".
Is that "arguing against a hypothesis"?
Yes, if we restrict hypothesis to mean:
HYPOTH - medical pros get duped because they yearn for easy solutions to complex problems that they don't have the knowledge to understand.
Our author IS arguing against THAT hypothesis.
However, that means that the 2nd half of (B) seems off.
The 2nd half of (B) sounds like it's saying, "A certain hypothesis must be wrong. After all, in some cases it doesn't apply."
However, the author is more saying, "A certain hypothesis must be wrong. After all, it NEVER applies." (i.e. Medical pros do NOT lack the knowledge to understand complex medical problems)
Meanwhile, if you take the hypothesis to be
HYPOTH - people get duped because they yearn for easy solutions to complex medical problems they don't understand
... in THAT case, we wouldn't say the author argues against it. We'd say the author argues that it does apply in some cases, and doesn't apply in other cases.
Is that "arguing against a hypothesis"?
Yes, if we restrict hypothesis to mean:
HYPOTH - medical pros get duped because they yearn for easy solutions to complex problems that they don't have the knowledge to understand.
Our author IS arguing against THAT hypothesis.
However, that means that the 2nd half of (B) seems off.
The 2nd half of (B) sounds like it's saying, "A certain hypothesis must be wrong. After all, in some cases it doesn't apply."
However, the author is more saying, "A certain hypothesis must be wrong. After all, it NEVER applies." (i.e. Medical pros do NOT lack the knowledge to understand complex medical problems)
Meanwhile, if you take the hypothesis to be
HYPOTH - people get duped because they yearn for easy solutions to complex medical problems they don't understand
... in THAT case, we wouldn't say the author argues against it. We'd say the author argues that it does apply in some cases, and doesn't apply in other cases.
4 posts Page 1 of 1