Q14 - Advertisement: A leading economist

[manoridesilva]

I wanted to put C as the answer but was concerned about the use of the phrase 'the first thing's having caused the second'. The first thing in the conclusion is owning a laptop. The second is a higher-paying job. Yet, if C is the correct answer, it seems to be phrased in reverse because it is saying that there is evidence consistent with a laptop causing a higher-paid job - which is the problem with the argument. Surely C should have read as follows to be correct: it concludes that one thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the second thing's having caused the first. Can someone please explain if I have applied the phrase 'first thing' and 'second' to the wrong section of the argument?

[geverett]

I would also be interested to hear about this. I am reading it the same way.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (C) does use referential language that can frequently give us pause to make sure that we understood what the word "it" meant! In this case what do they mean when they say "the first thing?"

The answer to that question is found in the answer choice, not the stimulus. If "one thing was caused by another" they mean that a higher-paying job is the result of owning a laptop. So the first thing (a higher paying job) is the effect and the second thing (owning a laptop) is the cause. And that works because the argument is consistent with the first thing (a higher paying job) causing the second thing (owning a laptop computer) to occur - best expressed in answer choice (C).

(A) is not true. The conclusion is a generality, but the evidence is not based on a small number of individuals.
(B) would imply that the argument is circular, but the argument's conclusion is NOT just a restatement of premise. The evidence is a correlation. The conclusion is a causal relationship.
(D) is not true. The evidence does support the conclusion, it just fails to prove it.
(E) is not true. The conclusion is about what happened in the past.

Does that answer your question on this one?

[lhermary]

I don't get why A is wrong. It does make a sweeping generalization on the basis of a small number of individuals (the place of employment). Both A and C look right to me...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ahh! But the evidence is not a limited number of examples. The evidence is that of those who used a computer at work those who people who owned a laptop computer earned more money..

That's not like saying that Jonnie and Sally owned laptop computers and earned 25% more at work. The argument is saying this is true for all people who who used a computer at work and who owned a laptop compared to those people who used a computer at work and did not own a laptop.

So while the conclusion may be a sweeping generalization, the evidence is definitely sweeping as well.

Make sense?

[cwolfington]

I don't get how the stimulus suggests the high-paying job is responsible for owning a laptop. Couldn't those employees have inherited money or won the lottery?

Could someone explain this to me?

[WaltGrace1983]

I don't get how the stimulus suggests the high-paying job is responsible for owning a laptop. Couldn't those employees have inherited money or won the lottery?

Could someone explain this to me?

You are touching on an essential aspect of the correlation/causation flaw. Whenever the LSAT gives us two things that are merely correlated (aka, go together) and then attempts to prove that one caused the other (A → B), we can show that this is flawed in multiple ways:

(1) Show that B actually caused A (B → A)
(2) Show that these things being correlated is just a matter of coincidence (no causation)
(3) Show that some unidentified third thing, like C, caused both A and B.

In this question, the author is showing that (laptop) is correlated with (25% more pay). Thus, (laptop) → (more pay). However, does (laptop) have to cause (more pay)? Nope!

Maybe, as you say, some other thing caused more pay!

[VendelaG465]

Isn't C just repeating itself? im reading it as laptop---> higher job although laptop---->higher job. The although is confusing me as if there was going to be a counterpoint but it just repeats itself? i'm on the same page as what manoridesilva posted above.

[ohthatpatrick]

"1st was caused by 2nd" = 2nd thing ---caused the---> 1st thing
"1st having caused the 2nd" = 1st thing ---caused the---> 2nd thing

It's not repeating itself. It uses the passive form of the verb in the first usage, and the active form in the second usage.

PASSIVE:
The balloon's popping was caused by the pin.

ACTIVE:
The pin caused the balloon's popping.

The original poster's concern was arising from the fact that the conclusion is written in active voice, but the first half of (C) is written in passive voice.

We just need to think about what's being talked about:
"supposedly, having a laptop caused having a higher-paying job"

So when (C) says anything resembling, "the author concluded that ____ was the cause, and ___ was the effect", we'll just match up what the conclusion identified as cause/effect and put it in those blanks.

(C) is saying, with all pronouns defined ...
"The argument concludes that having a higher paying job was caused by owning a laptop although the evidence given is consistent with the higher paying job's having caused the owning of a laptop."

[VendelaG465]

PASSIVE:
The balloon's popping was caused by the pin.
pin ---->balloon popping

ACTIVE:
The pin caused the balloon's popping.
pin----> ballon popping

is this correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes!

Changing a sentence from active to passive form doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, so you're still assigning the same idea as the cause and the same idea as the effect.

I wouldn't recommend thinking of those as conditional statements, but I assume you're just using the arrow to communicate the idea of causation.

[JudyP711]

I've read through the thread and this question is still driving me nuts - maybe I'm missing something. If I'm understanding correctly, C states that "the conclusion suggests that a laptop caused a higher-paying job but evidence suggests that a higher-paying job caused the possession of a laptop". But how does a higher paying job guarantee possession of a laptop? A person could have a high-paying job and still choose not to buy a laptop. Could someone please help me understand?

[obobob]

After reading all the questions and answers for this LR question, I still have two problems. First of all, just as @lhermary says, I freakin' think that the argument is making a sweeping generalization.

I don't get why A is wrong. It does make a sweeping generalization on the basis of a small number of individuals (the place of employment). Both A and C look right to me...

The sample is from a leading economist's place of employment, so how can we perceive that any determination found from this sample size enough to make any generalization?

@ManhattanPrepLSAT1 attempted to answer to this question, but I am still confused.

Ahh! But the evidence is not a limited number of examples. The evidence is that of those who used a computer at work those who people who owned a laptop computer earned more money..

That's not like saying that Jonnie and Sally owned laptop computers and earned 25% more at work. The argument is saying this is true for all people who who used a computer at work and who owned a laptop compared to those people who used a computer at work and did not own a laptop.

So while the conclusion may be a sweeping generalization, the evidence is definitely sweeping as well.

Make sense?

What do you mean by the "evidence is not a limited number of examples"? How is the sample size from the stimulus different from "saying that Jonnie and Sally owned laptop computers and earned 25% more at work"? Sure, the sample size from the stimulus sounds like a bigger than "Jonnie and Sally," but I am still not understanding what's the reason why (A) cannot be the right answer.

Another question I have is the wording of (C). I get what (C) is literally saying. However, I am concerned with the part of (C) saying: "[...] although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing's having caused the second." When I first solved this question, I chose (A) after debating between (A) and (C), because I thought the second part of (C)'s wording sounded as if the argument's evidence is telling the opposite to what the conclusion is saying (thus, didn't really sounded like the answer choice is talking about "correlation vs. causation" flaw). Granted, what ultimately (C) is trying to say is what the evidence in the stimulus can be interpreted in either way (owning laptop --> higher-paying job OR higher-paying job --> owning laptop) but the conclusion is concluding that [owning laptop --> higher-paying job]. I kind of get that (C) is trying to establish that. But, still, I am finding a little hesitant to be fully convinced that (C) is talking only about correlation vs. causation flaw due to its wording. Can somebody please clarify this for me??

[ohthatpatrick]

In regards to (A), which sounds like a sampling flaw in which our sample size is too small (only a small number of individuals) .... the sample size is potentially quite robust.

A good sample is at least 100 people. This sample could easily be many times that size. You may have been confused or made a typo when you said the leading economist looked at HIS/HER place of employment.

That's not what it says. He looked at "people who used computers at their job last year". In the U.S., that would be a sample size of at least a million people (probably many times that).

In order for (A) to be a correct answer, LSAT would give us more clarity that the sample size was limited to just a handful of people.

In regards to (C), "Did X cause Y, or did Y cause X?" is a question we ask ourselves whenever we're looking at a correlation. The buzzword for that issue is REVERSE CAUSALITY? (We also ask ourselves .... "Did Z actually cause X and Y?" ... the buzzword there is THIRD FACTOR?)

"consistent with" = compatible with = could be true

When authors present a statistic and then conclude some causal interpretation of that statistic, they too often sound SURE of one POSSIBLE interpretation. We are allowed to say, "This argument is flawed, because the author became convinced of one possible interpretation, when other possible interpretations also exist."

f.e. Bob is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.

"cutting onions" is one POSSIBLE interpretation of Bob's crying, but it's surely not the only possibility. Maybe Bob is sad about something. We can fairly criticize the author for having gotten tunnel vision for one possible causal interpretation without sufficiently ruling out other possibilities.

The flaw correct answer to that argument could read
(C) It concludes that Bob's crying was caused by the cutting of onions although the evidence given is consistent with sadness having caused Bob's crying.

(This is a THIRD FACTOR answer)

f.e. People who jump out of airplanes a lot tend to experience very little fear about doing so. Clearly, being fearless about jumping out of an airplane inclines you more to jump out of airplanes.

(C) It concludes that fearlessness of jumping out of airplanes caused frequent skydiving although the evidence given is consistent with frequent skydiving's having caused the fearlessness of jumping out of airplanes.

(this was a REVERSE CAUSALITY answer)

Hope this helps.

[LeeJ891]

In regards to (A), which sounds like a sampling flaw in which our sample size is too small (only a small number of individuals) .... the sample size is potentially quite robust.

A good sample is at least 100 people. This sample could easily be many times that size. You may have been confused or made a typo when you said the leading economist looked at HIS/HER place of employment.

That's not what it says. He looked at "people who used computers at their job last year". In the U.S., that would be a sample size of at least a million people (probably many times that).

In order for (A) to be a correct answer, LSAT would give us more clarity that the sample size was limited to just a handful of people.

In regards to (C), "Did X cause Y, or did Y cause X?" is a question we ask ourselves whenever we're looking at a correlation. The buzzword for that issue is REVERSE CAUSALITY? (We also ask ourselves .... "Did Z actually cause X and Y?" ... the buzzword there is THIRD FACTOR?)

"consistent with" = compatible with = could be true

When authors present a statistic and then conclude some causal interpretation of that statistic, they too often sound SURE of one POSSIBLE interpretation. We are allowed to say, "This argument is flawed, because the author became convinced of one possible interpretation, when other possible interpretations also exist."

f.e. Bob is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.

"cutting onions" is one POSSIBLE interpretation of Bob's crying, but it's surely not the only possibility. Maybe Bob is sad about something. We can fairly criticize the author for having gotten tunnel vision for one possible causal interpretation without sufficiently ruling out other possibilities.

The flaw correct answer to that argument could read
(C) It concludes that Bob's crying was caused by the cutting of onions although the evidence given is consistent with sadness having caused Bob's crying.

(This is a THIRD FACTOR answer)

f.e. People who jump out of airplanes a lot tend to experience very little fear about doing so. Clearly, being fearless about jumping out of an airplane inclines you more to jump out of airplanes.

(C) It concludes that fearlessness of jumping out of airplanes caused frequent skydiving although the evidence given is consistent with frequent skydiving's having caused the fearlessness of jumping out of airplanes.

(this was a REVERSE CAUSALITY answer)

Hope this helps.

Thanks for your consistent insights on here. For your REVERSE CAUSALITY example about skydiving, I see why it's not right to conclude that the fearlessness of jumping out of the airplanes caused frequent skydiving, but why is the evidence also consistent with the reverse? It seems like it's only consistent with a correlation.

[Laura Damone]

Jumping in for ohthatpatrick here since he's currently on hiatus:

When he said the evidence was consistent with the causality going either way, that just means that it could be the case that either condition caused the other. That doesn't imply that the evidence supports this being a causal relationship. It could, as you said, just be simple correlation.

Many correlations are consistent with causality that goes in either direction. Meaning that when A and B are correlated, maybe A is causing B, or maybe B is causing A. Heck, maybe it's a little bit of both.

Patrick's skydiving example fits this bill. Maybe people skydive because they aren't afraid of jumping out of planes. Or maybe people have lost the fear of jumping out of planes through skydiving. The information given is consistent with either of these being true.

In reality, it's probably a little bit of both. That first jump is probably caused in part by a lack of fear. Lack of fear on subsequent jumps is probably caused in part by the experience of prior jumps.

Make sense?