Q13

[rmoncel]

Hi,

Answer choices A and E both seem defendable to me. Here is my analysis of both answers. Can you please help me understand what's wrong with E and why A is definitely correct?

The author argues in paragraph 3 that situational factors do not account for all instances of code-switching. Sometimes, the change is done for rhetorical reasons (lines 44-49). So we are looking for an answer choice that suggests that rhetorical effects was NOT the reason the family spoke Spanish from time to time. Note that the author specifies that in the study there was "no change in situational factors" (line 55).

E: If, all things being equal, the family members described their occasional use of Spanish differently to the researcher as they did to other people prior to the study, then one could infer that the presence of the researcher introduced a bias in the experiment (e.g. the researcher's question or suggestion led them to indicate that they used Spanish for rhetorical purposes when in fact they did not). That would weaken the author's argument; hence I picked this answer choice.

A: I'm not sure how this weakens the author's argument. In the third paragraph, the author says that in the study, there was "no change in situational factors" (line 55). Answer A presents a situation where code switch happens when situational factors changed significantly. But the author doesn't argue that code-switch can't be explained by situational changes. The author argues that sometimes (perhaps even rarely), it is rhetorical reasons that account for the change.

Wow.. What a mouthful... thanks for your help!

[mleeker]

I missed this question as well and also thought that (E) was the correct choice. After reviewing it, here are my thoughts:

(A) States that in a 12-month study before the one mentioned in the passage, the family always used English, except if situational factors changed. But the results from the study in the passage run contrary to this. The study from the passage states that the family inserted small phrases of Spanish into conversations even though the situational factors did not change. If (A) is taken as true, it would cast doubt on the conclusion that the family uses code-switching sparingly to achieve rhetorical effects, because a previous study was shown that they never used such effects.

(E) As I said, I also put this answer choice for similar reasons. But the problem with this answer choice is that it doesn't really weaken the results of the research. The results of the research were that the family sparingly used code-switching for rhetorical effect, without awareness of doing such. Just because they did not describe to researchers what they do in a consistent fashion (as (E) states), does not weaken the results of the study.

This is the best I can think of. As you can tell by my post count, I'm certainly not an expert at breaking these things down. Hopefully others can chime in, and probably will be able to give more succinct responses.

[rmoncel]

Hey,

Thanks for your sharing your thoughts mleeker. I can see your point on E and agree that it might not NECESSARILY prove that the survey was flawed.

On A: the issue I have is that you are casting doubt on the study itself whereas the question asks what would cast doubt on the AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION of the study. I read that to mean: "if the study is valid, what evidence would suggest that the author misread / misunderstood the results of the study". But, to your point, the author may have misinterpreted the study to be valid!

Looking at the question again, I think there may something else that makes E shaky. Answer choice E says that family members did not describe their occasional use of Spanish as serving to "emphasize humor or intimacy." But the passage indicates that the family uses Spanish to communicate humor or intimacy "more emphatically." Perhaps we are expected to pick up on this difference and judge that more empathy is not the same as more emphasis? That would be a bit far fetched, but hey... it's the LSAT!

Let's see what others think...

[bbirdwell]

Great discussion guys!

Here it is in short:

(E) is wrong because it doesn't matter how the people describe their use of the language. This is not material to the idea -- it's an added detail. The point is that sometimes situational factors don't explain things, so rhetorical factors do. Their level of self-awareness about it is just fluff.

(A) is right, and it's a classic logical move. As mleeker says, it presents a study that runs contrary to the results of the study in the passage. This is a consistently logical way to weaken a conclusion -- bring in another study that conflicts with the original. This is especially relevant in this case because it's a study of the same exact family.

[tzyc]

Hi just wanted to double check...
(A) is correct because if this was true, that means situational factor would be the key after all and that undermines the claim...correct??

[LSAT on Brain]

Why is B wrong?

I assume that is is because it talks about "a particular set of situational factors" which is undefined

I am wondering if there is a difference between a study reviewing the past 12 months and one observing the next 12?

[hyewonkim89]

Hi MLSAT,

I found (C) to be very tempting. Will someone help me understand why (C) is wrong?

Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's try to roll all these questions into one compact explanation.

Our first job here is to identify the author's interpretation of the study. The first two sentences of the 3rd paragraph give us that answer: rhetorical factors, not situational ones, explain the code-switching. This interpretation is fleshed out more when the author says that code-switching occurred "with no change in situational factors" and that the family members indicated the purpose of code-switching was "to express certain attitudes more emphatically" (rhetorical purpose).

Okay, so our job is to weaken the idea that "rhetorical, not situational, factors caused the code-switching in this family".

(A) This presents some counterevidence. For the SAME family in the SAME context for the SAME length of time, we have strong evidence that SITUATIONAL factors caused code-switching. Naturally, this doesn't prove anything, but it's really good counterevidence for the claim that "rhetorical, not situational, factors caused the code-switching in this family".

(B) This is completely compatible with the author's interpretation. In this study, situational factors did NOT cause code-switching. That completely aligns with the author's interpretation. Eliminate.
(p.s. someone asked whether it matters if it's previous 12 months or subsequent 12 months ... it does not)

(C) Hmm, previously intimacy and humor were prompting code-switching to Spanish. Is this going against that trend? Not really, because of the strength of language from the passage and the answer choice. Did the passage say that WHENEVER the family was expressing intimacy/humor, they switched to Spanish? No. It was really suggesting that WHENEVER the family switched to Spanish, it was to express intimacy/humor more emphatically. The fact that the family occasionally uses English for the same purposes is not counterevidence.

If I said "All girls like Justin Bieber", would it be counterevidence to say, "Nuh-uh. My brother Todd likes Justin Bieber." No. Similarly, this has no effect on the original interpretation of "When there is code-switching to Spanish, it's due to expressing humor/intimacy."

(D) How the family answers a specific question from a researcher really has no bearing on the interpretation of the original study. The researcher might have asked the question in English, prompting an English-language response.

(E) This doesn't mean that the family members were lying to the researchers about why they occasionally use Spanish. It could just mean that the family members had never given the matter any thought. As the passage indicates, the family members actually THOUGHT that they only spoke in English at home. So if they weren't even consciously aware that they occasionally spoke Spanish at home, naturally they would not have previously described their occasional use this way. They wouldn't have even thought they HAD occasional use.

Let us know if questions remain.

[BarryM800]

In ¶3, the author talks about code-switching in two situations that cannot be explained by situational factors: (1) when the domain would not dictate it; and (2) situational factors do not change. The first situation is straightforward: code-switching could not be explained by situational factors as delineated in ¶2. Note in the second situation, the author did not say that situational factors changing from one that does not dictate code-switching to one that does (otherwise it'll be the same as the first situation), but just purely changing of situational factors. In essence, the author just tries to emphasize that such code-switching has nothing to do with situational factors whatsoever.

The author's overall explanation of code-switching is causal in nature, the cause being situational or rhetorical factors and the effect code-switching. The way to weaken such a causal claim is to disrupt the cause-effect pattern. This question asks us to weaken the causal relationship between rhetorical factors and code-switching. Since the author already stated that rhetorical factors kick in in the absence of situational factors, we want to weaken by showing rhetorical factors present but no code-switching.

(A) talks about situational factors (changed significantly) with code-switching. This is a totally different scenario and it merely shows that code-switching has something to do with situational factors, though not the one delineated in ¶2 (i.e., certain situational factors would dictate code-switching). However, this does not exclude rhetorical factors as a possible cause for some other occurrences of code-switching. So it begs for a different justification for (A) being the credited response.

I agree with previous posts that the distinction between "previous" and "subsequent" has no bearing on the discussion. But I think the operative words are "twelve-month study." This indicates a long term study, which seems to say there's got to be some situations where the family members came across opportunities that they wanted to express certain attitudes, yet there was no code-switching. Indeed, my initial thought on these answer choices is: OK, so there is no code-switching due to rhetorical factors, but what if they just never had the need to emphasize certain attitudes. Then, I realize the reason that some answer choices contain the language "twelve-month study" is to imply that it's almost impossible not to come across any such opportunities in such a long period of time. So once an answer choice says all code-switching has been accounted for by way of situational factors and no other code-switching existed, that's the correct answer! Any thoughts? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I see where you're coming from, but I think there's an easier way to justify answer choice (A). You're correct that the author is assuming a causal relationship, ie, the family in the third paragraph is an example of code-switching not caused by situational factors. Doesn't even matter what the cause is, as it's mainly presented as an example where the cause was not situational.

The easiest way to weaken is to provide evidence that situational factors have caused the family to code-switch, which is what answer choice (A) does. Another common way to weaken the findings of a study are to show a similar study with different results, which is also what answer choice (A) does.