Q19 - Ecologist: One theory attributes the

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Chemical compounds aren't the reason that sea butterflies are avoided by predators.
Evidence: In a study, we added one compound per pellet. Predators ate the pellets no matter which compound was present.

Answer Anticipation:
The opposing-conclusion is "the compounds ARE the reason that predators avoid sea butterflies". How would that lawyer respond to the study that says, "we fed predators each compound, one at a time, and the predators tolerated all of them." She might say, "Well maybe you didn't add enough of the compoun. Maybe the concentration in the pellet is different from how much a predator would get by eating a sea butterfly. Maybe the compounds don't work separately; they only work when all eaten at the same time. Maybe the food pellet better hid the nasty flavor of the compounds than the body of a sea butterfly usually does."

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Does the author need to assume the two theories are incompatible? No. She might think it's compatible for sea butterflies to be avoided for their appearance and their chemical compounds. Compatible just means "those ideas do not contradict". The theory that sea butterflies are avoided because of their appearance is simply filler in this paragraph; it plays no role in the argument.

(B) The ol' Correlation vs. Causation flaw. Does this match up? The author DOES conclude about a cause ("__ is not RESPONSIBLE for ___ "). But the evidence is not a statistical correlation. It's an actual experiment.

(C) The ol' Conditional Logic Flaw. Does this match up? No, there's no conditional logic in the evidence.

(D) The ol' Part vs. Whole Flaw. Does this match up? Yes. The premise is a claim that says "No individual compound, from the set of the sea butterflies' compounds, had the effect of discouraging predators." and the conclusion says that "the set of compounds the sea butterflies produce" therefore also does not have the effect of discouraging predators.

(E) The ol' Circular Logic Flaw. The conclusion did not restate any premise.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a tough Part to Whole flaw to see coming because it's nested in a causal argument's setting. The biggest clue is that moment where we say, "we added each … one at a time".

#officialexplanation

[chike_eze]

Correct = (D)
Question type: ID Flaw

Conclusion: Compounds produced by sea butterflies are not responsible for their ability to avoid predation

Why? Compounds were separated, each compound added to a food pallet. Predators were not deterred by any individual compound in each fool pallet because they ate each one.

Gap: Just because Predators acted one way with individual compounds does not guarantee that they will act that way with all compounds together.

(D) Part to whole flaw. This states the flaw exactly. Just because something is true of a part doesn't mean it is true of the whole.

(A) "Incompatible theories" flaw does not pertain to a comparison, rather it is about wrongful attribution
(B) "statistical correlation" Flaw is not about correlation to cause-n-effect. If anything, the author is concluding that an effect is not brought about by a cause.
(C) "Mistaken sufficient/necessary" Argument does not introduce a credible conditional statement and then illegally negate or reverse it, rather it introduces one premise which does not necessarily lead to the conclusion
(E) "Concludes by restating premise" - Author does not do this. He makes a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. Conclusion and premises are not equivalent statements.

[noah]

Strong write-up, as usual. I'll do a bit of work on your wrong answer analysis:

Correct = (D)
Question type: ID Flaw

Conclusion: Compounds produced by sea butterflies are not responsible for their ability to avoid predation

Why? Compounds were separated, each compound added to a food pallet. Predators were not deterred by any individual compound in each fool pallet because they ate each one.

Gap: Just because Predators acted one way with individual compounds does not guarantee that they will act that way with all compounds together.

(D) Part to whole flaw. This states the flaw exactly. Just because something is true of a part doesn't mean it is true of the whole.

(A) is a great flaw for some other argument! The argument isn't about the two theories relationship. It's focused on disproving one of them.

(B) is wrong since there's no conclusion about something causing something. If anything, the author is concluding that an effect is not brought about by a cause.

(C) the argument does not introduce a credible conditional statement and then illegally negate or reverse it. Nothing is treated as necessary - and one can say that the conclusion is that something is not sufficient!

(E) is wrong since the author makes a conclusion that is different from the premise! The premises are about the experiment, the conclusion is ruling out a possible cause for something.

[brandoncbias]

Though I see why D is correct, it is still hard for me to eliminate B. Two theories are postulated to explain the cause of an effect: sea butterflies avoiding predation.

One claims the cause to be their appearance and the other, which is relevant to the conclusion, claims the cause to be the various compounds the sea butterfly produces.

The author draws the conclusion that the second cause cannot be responsible for the effect based on an experimental action.

The only thing in my opinion that could be used to eliminate B is that the evidence of correlation is arguably non-statistical, since no amounts or proportions were mentioned.

Or is it because this argument is more of the phenomenon and explanation variety than cause and effect?

Could someone please help me with this one? Thanks in advance!

[iryankees13]

Though I see why D is correct, it is still hard for me to eliminate B. Two theories are postulated to explain the cause of an effect: sea butterflies avoiding predation.

One claims the cause to be their appearance and the other, which is relevant to the conclusion, claims the cause to be the various compounds the sea butterfly produces.

The author draws the conclusion that the second cause cannot be responsible for the effect based on an experimental action.

The only thing in my opinion that could be used to eliminate B is that the evidence of correlation is arguably non-statistical, since no amounts or proportions were mentioned.

Or is it because this argument is more of the phenomenon and explanation variety than cause and effect?

Could someone please help me with this one? Thanks in advance!

I believe you were correct in stating there is no real statistical evidence being given. The author is not using statistical correlation to draw his conclusion.

I believe that would look more like this: 100% of people at my firm record being unhappy today. Today is also a cold day. Therefore the cold is the reason why everyone is unhappy. Now we know this is absurd (what if everyone just lost their jobs because the firm went under) and a flaw used at times on the LSAT, but not in this argument.

[mitrakhanom1]

Can one of the LSAT instructors please answer what brandoncbias wrote. I had the same thought process.

brandoncbias wrote:Though I see why D is correct, it is still hard for me to eliminate B. Two theories are postulated to explain the cause of an effect: sea butterflies avoiding predation.

One claims the cause to be their appearance and the other, which is relevant to the conclusion, claims the cause to be the various compounds the sea butterfly produces.

The author draws the conclusion that the second cause cannot be responsible for the effect based on an experimental action.

The only thing in my opinion that could be used to eliminate B is that the evidence of correlation is arguably non-statistical, since no amounts or proportions were mentioned.

Or is it because this argument is more of the phenomenon and explanation variety than cause and effect?

Could someone please help me with this one? Thanks in advance!

[rinagoldfield]

(B) is a right answer choice for a different kind of argument. I like iryankees13 ‘s example of an argument for which (B) would articulate the correct flaw:

"I believe that would look more like this: 100% of people at my firm record being unhappy today. Today is also a cold day. Therefore the cold is the reason why everyone is unhappy."

^This argument points out a correlation (unhappiness and cold), and draws a bad causal inference. The original argument, on the other hand, lacks a correlation. The compounds in the pellets did NOT have any impact. So, there’s no correlation in the premise to make a bad causal inference from.

[mswang7]

Premises: 2 theories about how sea butterflies avoid predation: appearance & produced chem compounds
Added 1 compound per pellet
Predators ate food pellets no matter what compound it contained\
Concl: Compounds not responsible for predation protection

Prephrase: Parts vs whole flaw - just bc each compound individually did not deter predators doesn't mean all the compounds together yield the same result

A. Argument does not do this
B. There isn't anything statistical here
C. Doesn't do this
D. Exactly
E. Doesn't do this