Q21 - In an experiment, volunteers witnessed

[bbirdwell]

Hi!

First of all, you are absolutely correct in your approach to answer selection for this problem. When analyzing the argument, we need to identify the paradox, and know that the correct answer will allow both sides of the paradox to remain true.

With that in mind, here's my take on the problem:

Experiment Setup:
First round-- lawyer tries to make folks answer inaccurately
Second round -- lawyer tries to make folks answer accurately ("correct inaccuracies")

Experiment Results:
First round -- some witnesses gave relatively accurate testimony
Second round -- those same witnesses gave relatively inaccurate testimony

We simply need an answer choice that offers a reason why some people performed completely opposite to the way the questioners were trying to make them perform.

(A) helps explain why some people were more accurate during the first round, but offers no explanation about those people's performance in the second round
(B) same as (A)
(C) says that the people in question weren't influenced by the questioners. this would provide a possible explanation for the contradictory results of the experiment.
(D) says that answers became more accurate over time, but this is the opposite of what happened
(E) more details? hmm. a somewhat tempting answer at first, but actually doesn't help. That they provided more details does not explain why the volunteers in question were the most accurate at first and then most inaccurate under cross-examination.

(C) is the best answer. Compared with the rest of the answer choices, it "most" helps to resolve the paradox at hand. Resist the temptation to get tangled up in wondering why their answers seem to have become less accurate over time -- that's a trap. The real paradox is that their behavior was contrary to the experimenters' intentions, and (C) DOES explain why this is so.

If you're still confused, consider this: what if the experimenters had designed things like this:

First round -- lawyer tries to make answers accurate
Second round -- lawyer tries to make answers inaccurate

Then the results are the same. Is it still weird that their answers got less accurate over time? A little bit, yes. One would think that a person's answers would have a consistent level of accuracy/inaccuracy. But is there a paradox to explain? No. They were being influenced by the lawyers, just as intended.

Hope that helps!


#officialexplanation

[pwleed]

I don't have the answer or even remember the answer that I put back when I took this PT in May, but I do recall that the correct answer surprised and frustrated me. I believe I put C, which makes sense to me considering it allows both sides of the paradox to be true, but I seem to remember that E was the correct answer, although I may be wrong. Help?

[shirando21]

I still cannot understand how C can prove why in second round, these witnesses gave more inaccurate details than others.

I thought A, as the witness are more observant, they were influenced by what other people said, so that influenced what they say in the second round..........

Can anyone discuss in more details?

[s.atrmachin3]

I like to think of this one using a sliding scale:

0 = Witnesses who gave testimony containing fewer inaccurate details
1 = Most of the other witnesses

Round 1: Inaccurate -------1-------0--------------- Accurate
Round 2: Inaccurate ---------------0-------1------- Accurate

If (C) is true, then the lawyer in Round 1 was able to move group 1 more toward "inaccurate" than group 0. Subsequently, if (C) is true, it's possible for the lawyer in Round 2 to move group 1 back across the spectrum, toward "accurate" and past group 0.

Hope this is intelligible.

Lance

[pkraft1]

C is the answer because, while it does not provide a causal explanation as to why the witnesses who would accurately remember something suddenly "remember" inaccurately, it still resolves the paradox. The confusing thing about this question is that there are actually two paradoxes (sort of--it's at least helpful to think of it this way).

1. how were this witnesses able to resist the first lawyer's attempts to make them testify inaccurately? That's kind of crazy, right?

2. Why did the same witnesses in 1 get worse at remembering later, especially when the the 2nd lawyer was trying to correct their initial inaccuracies?

At 1: answer C resolves the 1st paradox very well because these witnesses were simply less inclined to be influenced. That is already more than what the other answers do.

At 2: It is less clear how, but C still resolves the 2nd issue for 2 reasons:
A. These witnesses had fewer inaccuracies in the first place, meaning the 2nd lawyer, in the parameters of the experiment, couldn't do much with them anyway. The second lawyer is there to correct the inaccuracies in the witnesses testimony.
B. if A didn't do it for you (which admittedly it is a bit iffy), answer C says that whatever lawyer #2 says is also of less influence, meaning the witness cannot be influenced into reporting the details accurately.

Perhaps the witness had forgot the details in the time between Lawyer 1 and lawyer 2, but that is not the paradox you are asked to resolve. I think that is where this question loses people. Focus on what the paradox actually is and not on your prephrasing of a potential answer that would resolve the paradox.

[adacheo]

That sliding scale example given above is very helpful.

I think the key to this question is realizing that the special group of witnesses had more/less inaccuracies in comparison with the other volunteers.

Once you have that, (C) makes sense as the correct answer choice.

What makes this question tricky is that your mind gets hung up on trying to figure out how this group could possibly have had less inaccuracies at first and more later. It makes it sound as if their testimony changed, and they started getting more inaccurate.

But their testimony needn't have changed at all. They didn't have more inaccuracies. They had more inaccuracies relative to the other volunteers.

The sliding scale above gives a great visual idea of this.

[zen]

Want to add my explanation to why (C) works because I had trouble with it, but then I figured it out.

So, like the previous poster said, keep in mind the accuracy rate is relative,i.e. it is based upon a comparison with the other group( the one who's scores were worse in the first round etc.).

If we assume the lawyer's are actually influencing the opinion of the "worse in the first round group", then they would have been persuaded to get more details of what happened inaccurate, while the "better in first round" group who are less inclined to be influenced in their testimony would not be influenced and so would have gotten less details incorrect aka more accurate in comparison to the other group.

Now, the second round of questioning involves a lawyer who is trying to correct inaccuracies! This involves all the inaccuracies, not just the one's caused by the influence of the first lawyer. So now the "worse in first round" group who are more influenced by the lawyerly questioning would be influenced to correct all the inaccuracies! The "better in first round" group who are less influenced would still remain with the inaccuracies they had since the first round but since the other group has now been influenced to correct theirs, compared to them, they are now inaccurate because they were not influenced.

I know this is probably difficult to understand. it's been a really long day of studying but the idea is in there and i hope it helps someone someday.

[ellylb]

I've hit upon something that other people don't seem to have addressed so i'm wondering if i'm getting this wrong or it basically solves the entire dilemma.

If you read the question stem carefully, it actually asks "which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the results concerning the witnesses who gave testimony containing fewer inaccurate details during the first lawyer's questioning?"

I think the confusion from most of the people in this thread is that people are looking to resolve both paradoxes when actually the question stem only wants you to explain why the witnesses weren't swayed by the first lawyer!

Answer (C) demonstrates that so perfectly and easily that you'd think it's too easy to be true, but actually we all got it wrong because we fell into the clever LSAT makers trap of adding additional irrelevant information in the stimulus that was in no way related to what they were looking for, and designed to target careless readers

Can an LSAT pro please confirm this is indeed what's going on? Thanks!

[vickpetrosian1]

I've hit upon something that other people don't seem to have addressed so i'm wondering if i'm getting this wrong or it basically solves the entire dilemma.

If you read the question stem carefully, it actually asks "which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the results concerning the witnesses who gave testimony containing fewer inaccurate details during the first lawyer's questioning?"

I think the confusion from most of the people in this thread is that people are looking to resolve both paradoxes when actually the question stem only wants you to explain why the witnesses weren't swayed by the first lawyer!

Answer (C) demonstrates that so perfectly and easily that you'd think it's too easy to be true, but actually we all got it wrong because we fell into the clever LSAT makers trap of adding additional irrelevant information in the stimulus that was in no way related to what they were looking for, and designed to target careless readers

Can an LSAT pro please confirm this is indeed what's going on? Thanks!

Not a Pro but now that i look at it you got it spot !!! Your point in fact makes the question much easier if we just isolate their performance during the first lawyers attempt at screwing with the details...Bravo