aileenann
Thanks Received: 227
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 300
Joined: March 10th, 2009
 
 
 

Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by aileenann Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:28 am

This argument asks us to find a flaw in the argument. Generally a flaw is linked to an assumption, so let's read the argument with an eye to identifying potential logic gaps.

If you read this carefully, you should have noticed the classic correlation causation fallacy going on here. The author assumes that because two activities correlate with increased theta wave function that one such activity (listening to music) can trigger the other correlated activity (enhanced creativity). The author is necessarily assuming that this is a one way street and/or that there isn't some other unidentified causal factor out there.

Answer choice (D) goes to this point. Just because theta waves are correlated with increased creativity doesn't mean that they cause increased creativity!
User avatar
 
tamwaiman
Thanks Received: 26
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 142
Joined: April 21st, 2010
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by tamwaiman Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:50 am

Hi aileenann

At first I think by your way when doing this question.
But now I have two question.

(1) regarding cause/effect relationship, when A causes B and B causes C, can we infer that A causes C?

(2) whether (1) is correct or not
Does the sentence "creativity are accompanied by an increase of theta brain waves." stand for "theta brain waves --> creativity" ?
 
cyruswhittaker
Thanks Received: 107
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 246
Joined: August 11th, 2010
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: PT 47 S 1 Q 23 Neuroscientists have found that states

by cyruswhittaker Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:04 pm

I agree that there is a causation/correlation flaw occuring here, but my problem with this answer is that it says "may not always be accompanied."

The columnist makes the conclusion that one "can" (so it could possibly happen) attain a state of profound creativity.

If the conclusion (or choice D) were made more certain, like if the conclusion said "will attain" then I would agree with this more.

Please help me to clarify this. Thanks!
 
interestedintacos
Thanks Received: 58
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 116
Joined: November 09th, 2010
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q23 - Neuroscientists have found that states

by interestedintacos Tue May 10, 2011 12:54 am

We don't need to show that the music will NEVER lead to the state B. We need to show merely that the music may not necessarily lead to state B. The columnist is saying that one will get state B merely by listening to music. He isn't saying one mightget there with music alone; he is saying you take any person out there and he/she can get state B merely from music.

I think you misinterpreted the "can." The columnist says "one can attain state B as a result of music alone." That doesn't mean one "might" get state B as result of music alone. It means that one is in fact able to attain state B from music alone.

The "can" = is able.
 
sukim764
Thanks Received: 3
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 27
Joined: March 09th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by sukim764 Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:29 am

cyruswhittaker Wrote:I agree that there is a causation/correlation flaw occuring here, but my problem with this answer is that it says "may not always be accompanied."

The columnist makes the conclusion that one "can" (so it could possibly happen) attain a state of profound creativity.

If the conclusion (or choice D) were made more certain, like if the conclusion said "will attain" then I would agree with this more.

Please help me to clarify this. Thanks!


Hello Cyrus!
I don't think the issue is with the usage of the word "can" but rather the implied relationship within the argument.

Premise 1: There's a correlation between states of profound creativity and an increase of theta brain waves

Premise 2: Listening to music increases theta waves dramatically.

Conclusion: One can attain a state of profound creativity merely by listening to a tape of recorded music.

Assumption: An increase in theta waves are ALWAYS accompanied by a state of profound creativity.

Choice D points to the first premise and reveals that the relationship between states of profound creativity and an increase of theta brain waves is not always ABSOLUTE.

I hope this helps, and please let me know if you find anything that I said unclear.
 
hyewonkim89
Thanks Received: 5
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 122
Joined: December 17th, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q23 - Neuroscientists have found that states

by hyewonkim89 Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:15 am

interestedintacos Wrote:We don't need to show that the music will NEVER lead to the state B. We need to show merely that the music may not necessarily lead to state B. The columnist is saying that one will get state B merely by listening to music. He isn't saying one mightget there with music alone; he is saying you take any person out there and he/she can get state B merely from music.

I think you misinterpreted the "can." The columnist says "one can attain state B as a result of music alone." That doesn't mean one "might" get state B as result of music alone. It means that one is in fact able to attain state B from music alone.

The "can" = is able.



I now understand why D is the answer.

But I picked B the first time and still have a hard time completely eliminating B especially after seeing your explanation. To me, B is showing music may not necessarily lead to state B, which is a state of profound creativity.

Please help! Thanks!
Last edited by hyewonkim89 on Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 468
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by tommywallach Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Hey Hyewonkim,

I think you may be confusing the meaning of "merely" here with "only". Star by really focusing on the conclusion of the argument:

Conclusion: One can attain creativity merely by listening to music.

Answer choice (B) says that the argument fails to consider that music may not be necessary for creativity. But look at that conclusion. It never says "the only way" that one can attain creativity is by listening to music. If it did, answer choice (B) would be correct.

As a parallel:

Conclusion: One can get fat eating potato chips.

Does this argument fail to consider that one can get fat in other ways? No! Because it never says chips are the only way that one can get fat.

Does that help?

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
 
hyewonkim89
Thanks Received: 5
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 122
Joined: December 17th, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by hyewonkim89 Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:17 pm

Yes! It's very clear now. Thank you!
 
mitrakhanom1
Thanks Received: 1
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 63
Joined: May 14th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by mitrakhanom1 Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:23 am

I understand why answer D is right, but can somebody explain why the other answer choices are wrong, especially C? Thanks
 
sumukh09
Thanks Received: 139
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 327
Joined: June 03rd, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by sumukh09 Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:29 pm

Hi,

As others have pointed out, we have a correlation mistaken for causation which is a big no-no on the LSAT.

A) says that the author assumes there's a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity. Does the author do this, though? No, the author asserts a correlation between an increase in theta waves, which happens to occur in the hippocampus, and profound creativity; he never makes the assumption that the hippocampus causes this profound creativity.

B) So what if he fails to consider this? This is simply not a flaw in the argument. The author never says that music is the only way for one to have profound creativity - and in fact, the author essentially uses music as just an example of something that can increase theta waves.

C) Not the flaw in the argument. This is similar to answer choice B) in that the author never says a tape recording is the only way to increase theta waves. He says "merely by listening to a tape of recorded music," that doesn't mean he is implying that a tape of recorded music is the only type of music that can increase theta waves.

E) Irrelevant/Out of Scope. We're talking about profound creativity and an "increase" in theta waves - the level of theta waves in one's hippocampus is unrelated
User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 468
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by tommywallach Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:32 pm

Thanks, Sumukh. Great explanation!

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
 
aznriceboi17
Thanks Received: 5
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 76
Joined: August 05th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by aznriceboi17 Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:25 am

Hi, could someone explain why E is incorrect (I looked at sumukh09's explanation but his rebuttal of E mentions the hippocampus, which I don't see in the answer choice)?

I follow that the columnist hasn't proven the following causal relationship:

increase in theta waves => state of profound creativity


To strengthen a causal argument, can we show that an absence of the EFFECT (state of profound creativity) is always accompanied by an absence of the CAUSE (increase in theta waves)? I.e. showing the 'contrapositive' of the causal argument?

It seems like E is getting at this, by pointing out that the columnist hasn't given us reason to believe that the absence of the CAUSE would mean the absence of the EFFECT. Though I guess one issue with this is that E says 'low levels of theta waves' when what we really need is 'constant levels of theta waves' (or anything other than an 'increase').
User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 468
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by tommywallach Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:44 am

Hey Azn,

Actually, answer choice (E) accuses the argument of not having its premise. The premise is that creativity is accompanied by an increase of theta brain waves. This is simply a fact. Thus, we don't need any reasons to believe that this correlation exists (i.e. people have lower levels of brain waves when not creative), because it's been stated outright.

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
 
aznriceboi17
Thanks Received: 5
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 76
Joined: August 05th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by aznriceboi17 Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:33 am

That's interesting, I didn't see it at all as an attack on the premise, but now that you said it, it makes sense. The relationship described in (D) is captured the premise given in the stimulus. Thanks for the response tommywallach!
User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 468
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by tommywallach Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:34 pm

Glad to help! : )

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
 
msbelenky
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 1
Joined: April 10th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found

by msbelenky Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:58 pm

Great discussion thus far.
Question here:
So if two things are correlated as in premise 1 (PC and TBW), it doesn't mean that they are ALWAYS together (or correlated), right?
Because D is saying that this correlation doesn't have to ALWAYS exist. It can occur sometimes. Which makes sense from the tone of sentence 1 which isn't overly strong. I guess I assumed if 2 things are correlated with each other, then they are ALWAYS correlated.