Q17 - From the fact that people

[noah]

17. (A)
Question type: Matching
If we strip the given argument to its skeleton we have the following: M are generally N (mathematical nerds), but this doesn’t mean that M leads to N. It may be that P leads to both M and N. A nifty example of valid Correlation/Causation logic: just because two things are correlated doesn't mean that one caused the other. Perhaps a third thing caused both of the correlated things!

Scanning the answer choices, (A) has a similar structure: while we may think that lack of attention (M) leads to bad performance (N) _ since those two usually go hand in hand _ it may be that a hearing problem (P) leads to both (M and N).

(B) introduces an extra variable, secondary school.
(C) lacks a third variable that can cause both of the others.
(D) introduces an extra set of issues to the argument"”the relationship between application and acquisition.
(E) lacks a third variable that can both of the others. One could say that less vigorous exercise is the third variable, however since it is related to beneficial results and not specifically being healthy, it does not follow the pattern of the original argument.

#officialexplanation

[patrice.antoine]

Thanks Noah.

What threw me off with answer choice A was "always possible". I was attempting to match the conclusions. I didn't think "always possible" was the same as "equally likely".

Perhaps my focus is misplaced when attempting pattern of reasoning questions? Should we try and match conclusions with this question type?

[noah]

Matching conclusions (and premises) is a great strategy - in fact, that's often the fastest way to eliminate 3 or 4 answers. (A) is the most parallel to the original (the LSAT allows itself some wiggle room in the question stem).

The "equally likely" does indeed correspond, albeit not perfectly to "it is always possible". Granted, if something is always possible, it's not necessarily equally likely, but coupled with "it should not be necessarily thought..." (A) ends up casting doubt on the causation argument and suggesting a possible alternative.

Good close reading!

If you want a challenge, go through each answer choice and tell me which ones have clear conclusion mismatches, and which ones have clear premise mismatches.