Q21 - At a large elementary school researchers

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Some students studied chess. Those students saw an increase in their grades. Thus, studying chess increases grades!

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a typical Correlation/Causation flaw. A study showed two things going together, and the conclusion draws a causal relationship between them. To weaken this, we should look for:
1) Alternative causes of the grade increase
2) Counterexamples (students who finished the program and didn't see a grade increase; students who didn't finish the program and saw a grade increase)
3) Reverse causality (doesn't make sense here, as it would go against the timeline)

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Not enough information. If this group also saw a grade increase, it might be a viable answer. However, it doesn't tell us anything about this group's grades.

(B) Tempting! This answer seems to call the sample into question. However, the argument doesn't state that the chess players had good grades, just improved grades. Also, this answer talks about those who didn't complete the program, whereas the premises and stimulus are about the group that did complete the program. If anything, the group in this answer should have seen some benefit from learning a bit of chess; however, we don't learn anything about their grades.

(C) Boom. This answer choice gives us an alternative cause. The spatial reasoning learned in chess didn't lead to an improvement in grades. Instead, the students enjoyed chess, and they needed to maintain a higher GPA in order to get onto the team. Their improved grades were a result of this desire to be on the team, not out of increased spatial reasoning.

(D) Tempting! This answer seems to give a counterexample - students who didn't have the cause, but did see the effect. The reason this type of answer, generally, weakens the argument is that it hints that the students who are talked about in the stimulus didn't benefit from the supposed cause, instead benefiting from another cause that is shown through other students also receiving the benefit. Here, however, the answer choice states that this study-session program was an alternative to chess - "instead" shows that the students couldn't participate in both. Since the chess students couldn't have seen an increase in grades from this program, we can't say this answer serves as an alternative cause/counterexample.

(E) Out of scope. The argument cares about learning certain skills. Even if some students are better than others, they should all still have picked up on some skills.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Definitely keep this question in a list of Correlation/Causation flaws - when you start to quickly spot the flaw, you can quickly get to the answer.

#officialexplanation

[wei_qi_qi]

Hi, I am wondering why C is correct.
This question is a typical correlation vs causation.
P： completing the program cor. increase in achievements levels in all schoolwork
C: chess-playing contribute to the achievement
Gap: what if these students are talented, so they do well in both schoolwork and chess?

I know it is wired but I feel all the choices are wrong. Could anyone explain how C weakens the argument?
?

[tombradyisgod]

C is right because it gives us an alternate cause for why most students ended up increasing their achievement levels after finishing the program.

If you try and argue with the author here, then I think you'll see why this is right:

Author: "Most of the kids who completed the chess program saw improvements in their schoolwork, so it is likely that the skills they learned from chess contributed to their achievement."

You: "That could be true, but many of the children in the study joined the chess team after and had to attain a high GPA to stay on the team. Therefore, their increase in achievement after the program could be due to them wanting to stay on the team, and not from completing the program. "

If you're working wrong to right on this question you can eliminate 3 of 5 quickly.

(A) stimulus was about children who participated, not children who didn't participate. Irrelevant.

(B) This one could trip you up if you didn't understand the parts of the argument well, but notice that the stimulus is about a change in kids who did complete the program. So pre-performance levels of kids who didn't complete the program are irrelevant.

(D) Same as A.

(E) Similar to B in addressing kids who didn't complete the program, but even more irrelevant.

[jm.kahn]

B says that only those children with better achievement at the beginning of program completed it. So it should weaken the arg because the children who showed increase in achievement after completing the program were better to begin with. Thus, program may not have anything to do with their increase in achievement. then why doesn't B weaken?

In that respect, it is similar to C, which also suggests that the many children who completed the program were better to begin with as evidenced by their high GPA, and program may not be the reason most of the children completing the program showed increase in achievement.
But C only refers to “many children” whereas in the study the argument only says that “most children” showed an increase in achievement and not “all children”. “many children” in choice C having high GPA is perfectly compatible with “most children” showing increased achievement as a result of the program. In this respect, C shouldn’t weaken at all as those “many children” may be the ones not included in the argument.
So, B can be a stronger choice than C.

Can an expert please explain the issues mentioned above with B and C?

[tombradyisgod]

B says that only those children with better achievement at the beginning of program completed it. So it should weaken the arg because the children who showed increase in achievement after completing the program were better to begin with. Thus, program may not have anything to do with their increase in achievement. then why doesn't B weaken?

In that respect, it is similar to C, which also suggests that the many children who completed the program were better to begin with as evidenced by their high GPA, and program may not be the reason most of the children completing the program showed increase in achievement.
But C only refers to “many children” whereas in the study the argument only says that “most children” showed an increase in achievement and not “all children”. “many children” in choice C having high GPA is perfectly compatible with “most children” showing increased achievement as a result of the program. In this respect, C shouldn’t weaken at all as those “many children” may be the ones not included in the argument.
So, B can be a stronger choice than C.

Can an expert please explain the issues mentioned above with B and C?

We can weaken causal reasoning by asking three questions:

i. Could B have a direct impact on A?
ii. Could it be that something else impacts both A and B?
iii. Could it be that A and B have no impact on one another?

In this instance, A is the program, and B is the increase in achievement.

(C) goes to number ii, in that joining the chess team provides an alternate reason for why students achievement levels increased. So instead of the program causing the increase in achievement, it was the chess team that caused the increase in achievement (we don't know this 100%, but weaken questions can still be right even if it isn't 100%).

(B) is ultimately wrong because it is out of scope. The premises and conclusion reached have nothing to do with kids who didn't complete the program.

The argument says that kids who did complete the program saw a significant increase, and the author believes that this increase is due only to the program.

Here's an analogy:

1. A school recently finished running an afternoon basketball program.

2. Students who successfully completed the program soon (after) showed significant improvement in their ability to run long distances.

3. Therefore, it is likely that the basketball program contributed to their improvement in their ability to run long distances.

(B) Before the program, those kids who didn't successfully complete the basketball program could not run as long as the kids who did complete the program.

(C) After completing the program, many of the kids joined the basketball team, which requires students to run long distances in order to stay on the team.

(C) makes you question (and thus weaken), whether we can really conclude that the program was the cause of the increase. Maybe some of the students who completed the program just stopped running afterwords and their ability hasn't increased. OR, maybe 99% of the students who completed the program can now run farther than before because they are on the basketball team and need to be able to do it in order to stay on the team.

[jm.kahn]

(B) is ultimately wrong because it is out of scope. The premises and conclusion reached have nothing to do with kids who didn't complete the program.

The argument says that kids who did complete the program saw a significant increase, and the author believes that this increase is due only to the program.

This doesn't address the question posted earlier about choice B. B it seems can weaken by suggesting that children who completed the program were naturally disposed to high achievement.

B says that only those children with better achievement at the beginning of program completed it. So it should weaken the arg because the children who showed increase in achievement after completing the program were better to begin with. Thus, program may not have anything to do with their increase in achievement. then why doesn't B weaken?

[zen]

(B) is ultimately wrong because it is out of scope. The premises and conclusion reached have nothing to do with kids who didn't complete the program.

The argument says that kids who did complete the program saw a significant increase, and the author believes that this increase is due only to the program.

This doesn't address the question posted earlier about choice B. B it seems can weaken by suggesting that children who completed the program were naturally disposed to high achievement.

B says that only those children with better achievement at the beginning of program completed it. So it should weaken the arg because the children who showed increase in achievement after completing the program were better to begin with. Thus, program may not have anything to do with their increase in achievement. then why doesn't B weaken?

This is a confusing and tough question but you are completely falling for the trap answer so deviously constructed by the LSAT writers.

It does not matter if the kids who completed it were geniuses before the program and the kids who dropped out had a lobotomy. This is because of the sentence that says "most who completed saw an increase". So if they were geniuses before, why are they even smarter after? If they were dumb before, why are they less dumb now? You can't say it is because of their intellectual qualities BEFORE the program because that does not explain why the program made those increase even more! Think of achievement levels as "grades". "So everyone who completed the program was an A student before, and those that dropped out were C students; ok, so why did the A students become A + students after the program??

(B) does not explain this.
(C) Does explain this because if right after completing the program but before enough time passed for the researchers to document any "Achievement level" increase, they joined the chess team which requires them to maintain high grades, then their higher grades could be explained by their motivation to remain on the team, not any increase in their reasoning power caused by the chess program.

I don't love this answer. Actually I hate it. But it works better than the others.

[ganbayou]

I thought MLSAT teachers once explain "many" is not enough to supports or hurts argument...Is C correct bc although it includes "many" its still the best answer choice?

[mshinners]

I thought MLSAT teachers once explain "many" is not enough to supports or hurts argument...Is C correct bc although it includes "many" its still the best answer choice?

"Many" is often not strong enough to hurt/help an argument, but, like most things on the LSAT, there are always exceptions. For argument that focus on causality, counterexamples or alternative causes (even if they only apply to "many" situations) will do the trick.

[seychelles1718]

is "many" in C kind of weak but is C still the best answer because all others are eliminated? Is "many" in Weaken/Strengthen Qs kind of redflag?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, "many" doesn't count for much (at least 5, one might say).

So it doesn't have a ton of strength to it. If it's the best answer, it's the best answer, though.

And if you're arguing with someone who's certain or saying something universal, it only takes a "many things are otherwise" to weaken that argument.

[syp]

Can one of the instructors please elaborate why D is wrong? I got this question right but I thought D served as a counterexample (no cause, effect still occurred). Since this wasn't a counterexample that "most" weakened the argument, how could this answer choice be amended to effectively weaken if it were to? Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

(D) starts off having very little oomph to it, since it's just a "some" claim. So it's telling us about "at least one student".

Also, the "no cause, effect" idea is pretty limited in its usefulness.

If Bob claims, "Listening to my playlist will make you feel happy"
can Sue undermine him by saying, "No it won't. After all, there have been times when I wasn't listening to your playlist but I was still happy"?

Bob wasn't claiming that listening to his playlist is the ONLY thing that can make you happy, so examples of other things making you happy don't weaken his claim.

Similarly, the conclusion here is just claiming that certain aspects of chess CAN contribute to other academic achievement. It's not claiming that ONLY chess can create academic improvement, so (D)'s example of something ELSE that (may have also) contributed to academic improvement doesn't do anything to weaken the original claim.

The context in which "no cause, effect" works is when you're mainly controlling for other variables.

If (D) said, "Most of the students at the same school who did not participate in the chess program also showed a significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork", then it would be a decent weakener.

It would suggest that something ELSE accounts for the chess players' schoolwork improvement, since non-chess players ALSO experienced the same schoolwork improvement.

The student/students described in (D) did not play chess, but they DID do something else (after-school study sessions). By identifying a special causal factor that only relates to the students who took those after-school study sessions, we're just swapping one variable for another.

Chess players: improved
After-school studiers: improved
Kids who did neither: ?

What we're looking for is a "control group", a group that is basically the same as the experimental group except they WEREN'T exposed to the supposed cause.

[EmilyL849]

Hi,

I was having the same issue with (B) like someone from above.
And I want to check my reasoning for eliminating it.

So, (B) says these kids who did complete the program had higher level of preprogram achievement than those who did not. So, when I was doing the PT, I thought this was a perfect weakener showing a common cause for the completion of chess program and later academic improvement.
Because if those kids who ended up seeing an improvement, had a high level of achievement to begin with, then that could be the reason for both completion and improvement.
I do understand the point about the conclusion is about the kids who DID finish and not about those who did not.
However, if you see “a high level of preprogram achievement” as a common foundation leading to both completion and later academic increase, (B) seems to weaken.

But then I realized what (B) was saying is not that those kids had “high” level in absolute terms, but that relatively they had “higher” level compare to those who did not.

A higher level of preprogram achievement causing better grade? That does not sound so convincing.

Would you say this line of reasoning is okay?

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct. You want to trash this answer because it's committing the dreaded Relative vs. Absolute flaw (in a sneaky way).

It's talking about where these kids ranked, prior to entering the program, in terms of academic achievement.

But it doesn't matter whether a kid entered the program with LOW or HIGH levels of achievement. The kids who completed the program showed a significant INCREASE in achievement.

It doesn't matter whether they went from D's to C's or from B's to A's.

The fact is, most of them IMPROVED relative to wherever they started. We want to know what accounts for their improvement. It doesn't matter whether their starting point was LOW or HIGH on the absolute scale. Wherever they started, they got HIGHER.

We wouldn't ever be able to say that "Because you started with a higher GPA, you improved."

Higher GPA isn't a common sense cause for improving.
If anything, a lower GPA would be more likely to be associated with improving (because there's more headroom to grow / more low-hanging fruit to help you score higher).

Hope this helps.

[WilliamS670]

The thrust of (C) - that enjoyment of chess induced motivation to achieve high grades, in order to meet one of the club's requirements for joining - is quite subtle (in my opinion at least). The burden of discerning it is eliminated if you employ POE on this question. Good illustration of the importance of POE. It bothers me that I couldn't discern the thrust of (C), but I still got there handily by POE.

[GolddiggerF208]

Every single time I went to B. I ended up with remembering the logic of this question. Some thoughts:

1. The P&C are merely about someone who completed the program. Can we know anything about the ones failed to complete the program? Of course not. Maybe our intuition will tell that a group of A can do something means the group of ~A cannot do something. That is simply not the logic of LSAT. We have the target of the question. The matters regarding the non-target are just irrelevant or something we by no means can know.

2. B seems to challenge the methodology if you read it as someone did worse than others prior to the program. This sometimes can weaken the logic. But, as far as I see, an option like this is usually the incorrect answer for not only W questions but also other types of questions (kind of invalid comparison).