Q22 - Taking advanced mathematics courses

[dsorchestra90]

Hey so this question stimulus basically states that since kids that take hard math classes have higher GPA's than kids that don't so this means that taking one will raise your GPA. I eliminated A,B,C rather quickly because I didn't see any similarity in the arguments. Then I got to D, and I was like okay contender I see you. I was kind of turned off though because although the argument is similar in structure, the people excerising bought more than 2 pairs, but the other people still bought at most one. The stimulus said people didn't take any classes. So I was kind of like nah contender, you're out. So then we got to E and it also gave me a small problem, but I think I'm just not speaking the LSAT language enough. Choice E said that reading should inspire them to read on their own, and children that haven't been read to are less likely to develop an interest in reading than those that had it. So I think this is the contrapostivie of the conclusion in the stimulus (is this true?) because it says the children have been denied the good thing (reading or advanced math) and they are less likely. The stimulus said they had the good thing and got more likely. So, is E correct? And is this the correct way to go about it. Thanks, sorry about the length but I like to know why soemthing is right or wrong, and if my methodology is correct, not just if I am correct.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So answer choice (D) is correct, but I totally agree with you and don't think that this question is very good.

We're asked to match the flawed pattern of reasoning in the stimulus. At first glance the flawed pattern of reasoning seems to be simply mistaking a correlation for cause and effect relationship. However, once you move the through the answer choices, you see this flaw in several places and need to fine tune this perception a bit.

(A) does not mistake correlation for cause and effect.
(B) mistakes correlation for cause and effect, but does not have the comparative nature of the evidence, so does not match.
(C) mistakes correlation for cause and effect, but does not have the comparative nature of the evidence, so does not match.
(D) mistakes correlation for cause and effect and possesses the comparative nature of the evidence, so is correct.
(E) is really close but fails to match the effect with the correlation in the evidence. "inspire to read on their own" is not the same as "develop an interest in reading." Additionally, the evidence is stated "less likely" rather than "more likely" as in the stimulus.

I really don't think the reasons I gave are that strong, but I do believe they are the reasons the LSAC would give you if you petitioned this question. Does that help clear this one up?

[todavidzheng]

I think i have a more convincing explanation as to why D is correct.

The conclusion of the argument is that taking advanced mathematics courses should increase THIS student's grade point average. The reason it cites is that students who have taken one or more advanced mathematics courses are far more likely to have high grade point averages than OTHER students who have not taken such courses.

The reasoning is obviously flawed because by comparing student A to student B, how can you reach the conclusion that A himself will improve by taking courses?

D has exactly the same flaw.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation! Compare what you said with what I said

(D) mistakes correlation for cause and effect and possesses the comparative nature of the evidence, so is correct.

The reasoning is obviously flawed because by comparing student A to student B, how can you reach the conclusion that A himself will improve by taking courses?

We're both identifying that comparing the two groups of students will not support an argument about causation. The evidence establishes a correlation between taking advanced mathematics and having a higher grade point average. Unfortunately, this comparative relationship will not support the idea that taking advanced mathematics will cause one to have a higher grade point average. Taking advanced mathematics courses and having a high grade point average could simply be coincidence or both of those factors could be caused by something else, or it could be the high grade point average that caused the student to take advanced mathematics.

Unfortunately, all of that explanation still leaves us with answer choices (D) and (E). To eliminate (E) we have to be careful both about the comparison made - it looks like it's going the other way around. But more importantly, the conclusion is about reading to children at an early age whereas the correlation provided in the evidence doesn't mention anything about reading at an "early age." There's a term shift.

Thanks for posting your explanation todavidzheng!

[geverett]

There was a similar trick employed in another Parallel reasoning question I've seen. One of the answer choices had to do with training for a swimming competition and one had to do with practicing the saxophone or practicing guitar.

[nflamel69]

I eliminated E because the stimulus concluded it should increase something. While in E it did say inspire them to read, I didn't really feel there is a expression of a change of rate, had it said inspire them more, then I don't know if I can really eliminate it confidently, what do ya guys think?

[anjelica.grace]

Took me a while to justify eliminating E but here is my reasoning:

The stimulus concludes that taking advanced math classes should cause one to have a higher GPA, where it is more reasonable to expect the reverse. That is, having a higher GPA causes one to take advanced math classes.

(D) concludes that buying running shoes should cause one to exercise more often, where it is more reasonable to expect the reverse. That is, exercising more often causes one to buy more running shoes.

The same cannot be said about (E), which concludes that reading to a child at an early age should cause that child to read on their own. It is less reasonable to expect that a child reading on their own leads to that child being read to.

Yes, just like the stimulus, both (D) and (E) are causations based on comparative correlations. However, (D) uses the correlation to support one direction of causation when the reverse is more likely.

It was hard for me to eliminate (E) simply because a of term shit (equivocation), although that is certainly a different flaw in addition to the one in the stimulus. It was also difficult to base (E)'s elimination on it NOT talking about an increase because that seems to put too much focus on content and not on logical structure. I also tried to justify eliminating (E) because the conclusion was about a group, whereas the conclusions of (D) and the stimulus were more geared to an individual, but that did not seem relevant. Also, I don't think that (E)'s "less likely" is grounds for it being incorrect because as an earlier poster stated, it could just as easily be reworded. Finally, I tried thinking maybe (D) was more similar to the stimulus because in (D), 2+shoes vs. 1 or less is parallel to 1+classes vs. 0 classes, whereas (E) is just read to vs. not read to, but that also seems like a weak distinction.

Obviously, (E) is still flawed for its correlation-causation structure but I believe the greater likelihood that (D) is reversed is what distinguishes the two and makes (D) parallel to the stimulus.

[coco.wu1993]

(E) is really close but fails to match the effect with the correlation in the evidence. "inspire to read on their own" is not the same as "develop an interest in reading." Additionally, the evidence is stated "less likely" rather than "more likely" as in the stimulus.

Concerning the text in bold, shall we be so rigid when doing Parallel Flaw questions?

[maryadkins]

This is not actually why I would eliminate (E). I would eliminate (E) because of the first part: "increase" versus "inspire."

Our stimulus says that X will INCREASE Y; so does (D), the correct answer. (E) says that it will just inspire children to read later. That's more of trigger on-off switch than a matter of increasing the degree to which something is happening. Make sense?

I agree with you that less likely versus more likely is not an issue on these kinds of questions, generally, and I don't think it's the issue here either, logically speaking.

[Mab6q]

I have serious reservations about this problem, but that's the LSAT for you. I tried my best to focus on the flaw that is represented by the stimulus, and it appears to be some kind of correlation causation flaw. Both D and E both represent this.

At first, I thought E was incorrect because of the word "develop". I thought this was giving us some causal affect that was different than more likely, and you could still make an argument for that in E. However, E does still make a correlation flaw because there could be some third factor that causes children to develop a greater interest in reading and have parents who read to them. D clearly has a causation flaw as well.

Sine the flaws were similar, I did my best to try and find discernible differences. I noticed that unlike E and the stimulus, D does not give us a study that established our premise. So this was my main motivation for eliminating D. Looking back now, I think the argument for the term shift is credible, but I wanted to see what you guys thought about the lack of including a study in D. Is that irrelevant here because D's premise serves the same function as our original?

thanks.

[asafezrati]

I have serious reservations about this problem, but that's the LSAT for you. I tried my best to focus on the flaw that is represented by the stimulus, and it appears to be some kind of correlation causation flaw. Both D and E both represent this.

At first, I thought E was incorrect because of the word "develop". I thought this was giving us some causal affect that was different than more likely, and you could still make an argument for that in E. However, E does still make a correlation flaw because there could be some third factor that causes children to develop a greater interest in reading and have parents who read to them. D clearly has a causation flaw as well.

Sine the flaws were similar, I did my best to try and find discernible differences. I noticed that unlike E and the stimulus, D does not give us a study that established our premise. So this was my main motivation for eliminating D. Looking back now, I think the argument for the term shift is credible, but I wanted to see what you guys thought about the lack of including a study in D. Is that irrelevant here because D's premise serves the same function as our original?

thanks.

I think that leaving the stimulus with the correlation causation flaw in mind is great and the best that can be expected in this case.
For me this type of questions (match the flaw) is the toughest and most time consuming. You aren't alone.

The term shifts in E are the best reasons to eliminate it. They add flaws that aren't present in the stimulus. I'm not sure about this, but it might be true that the gaps in the terms are such that the argument in E doesn't get to have correlation-causation flaw at all. You have to assume other stuff to get there.

As you said, the studies in the stimulus and the premise in D are quite the same. In fact, they ARE the same, since by writing that the studies have "SHOWN" some facts, the author accepts these as true facts.

BTW, I didn't read every post here, so I might have missed someone speaking about it, but I wanted to note that C might actually be a valid argument. The conclusion is very weak, concluding on the basis of a correlation that there is a POSSIBILITY of a causation relationship. Seems fair to me.

[maryadkins]

I wouldn't extrapolate a rule like that from this question. Like Matt said, this is an annoying question. Just move on, I say!

[ldfdsa]

I guess "reading on their own" is totally different from "interest in reading"; like, "feeding baby inspiring baby eating by itself" is different from "baby enjoying eating".

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, for the terms of the causal conclusion to match those in the correlation, we'd be equating
"more inspiration to read on own" with "more interest in reading"

I haven't seen many people grabbing onto what I used to like (D) and not like (E) ...
the original argument is very vulnerable to the reverse causality objection.

Isn't it equally (or more) likely that the high GPA came before the taking of advanced math? (Like maybe a high GPA is a prerequisite for advanced math)

With (D), it's equally (or more) likely that being a frequent runner came first, and that led to needing to buy more running shoes.

With (E), there's no way to argue reverse causality with this correlation. Maybe "being inspired to read on their own later" came first?

[burqin]

So answer choice (D) is correct, but I totally agree with you and don't think that this question is very good.

We're asked to match the flawed pattern of reasoning in the stimulus. At first glance the flawed pattern of reasoning seems to be simply mistaking a correlation for cause and effect relationship. However, once you move the through the answer choices, you see this flaw in several places and need to fine tune this perception a bit.

(A) does not mistake correlation for cause and effect.
(B) mistakes correlation for cause and effect, but does not have the comparative nature of the evidence, so does not match.
(C) mistakes correlation for cause and effect, but does not have the comparative nature of the evidence, so does not match.
(D) mistakes correlation for cause and effect and possesses the comparative nature of the evidence, so is correct.
(E) is really close but fails to match the effect with the correlation in the evidence. "inspire to read on their own" is not the same as "develop an interest in reading." Additionally, the evidence is stated "less likely" rather than "more likely" as in the stimulus.

I really don't think the reasons I gave are that strong, but I do believe they are the reasons the LSAC would give you if you petitioned this question. Does that help clear this one up?

C doesn't match because of the "may". D matches due to the "should".

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

C doesn't match because of the "may". D matches due to the "should".

I like it burgin, keepin it simple. So how do you eliminate (E)?

[BensonC202]

Yeah, for the terms of the causal conclusion to match those in the correlation, we'd be equating
"more inspiration to read on own" with "more interest in reading"

I haven't seen many people grabbing onto what I used to like (D) and not like (E) ...
the original argument is very vulnerable to the reverse causality objection.

Isn't it equally (or more) likely that the high GPA came before the taking of advanced math? (Like maybe a high GPA is a prerequisite for advanced math)

With (D), it's equally (or more) likely that being a frequent runner came first, and that led to needing to buy more running shoes.

With (E), there's no way to argue reverse causality with this correlation. Maybe "being inspired to read on their own later" came first?

By far the best argument for the answer D, and I believe this is the best reason to eliminate answer E, since to best eliminate E, I do not think the reversed tendencies shown from the phrase of " more likely " vs " less likely " from both the stimulus and answer E serves the reason to.

However, by arguing the reversed causality, we can immediately eliminate E.

Thank you, I love it.