Q23 - Researcher: Each subject in this experiment

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a fun one! Thanks for bringing it to the forum.

The argument concludes that certain makes of car must be more popular in some areas of the country than in others. What's the evidence for this? The fact that this is one explanation of the experimental result that folks overestimated the percentage of cars in the nation owned of the same model that they own from all cars in the nation. So the experimental results support that hypothesize, but the argument goes on to conclude with certainty something that is only supported - best expressed in answer choice (B). Another way to describe the error here is that the argument takes for granted something is true on the basis that is it could be true.

Let's take a look at the incorrect answers...

(A) is irrelevant. Why would the argument need to estimate the likelihood that the experimental results would occur? The conclusion reached on those experimental results is more important; the reasoning lies between the evidence and the conclusion.
(C) is untrue. The argument does take into account the wide geographical area from which the subjects come.
(D) is untrue. The evidence is not contradictory, just not confirmatory.
(E) is untrue. The intention of the statistical generalization was meant to apply to the conclusion.

Does that answer your question?

#officialexplanation

[tuh119]

I chose (B), which is the right answer by eliminating all the others, but not sure why it's correct.

Thanks in advance!

[shirando21]

(C) is untrue. The argument does take into account the wide geographical area from which the subjects come.

where in the argument gives support to this explanation that the argument takes into account the wide geographical area from which the subjects come?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

where in the argument gives support to this explanation that the argument takes into account the wide geographical area from which the subjects come?

I should have said that the argument takes into account the possibility that the subjects come from a wide geographical area. Had answer choice (C) been the correct answer, the argument would have needed to assume that the subjects do not come from a wide geographical area - which is not assumption of this argument.

[seychelles1718]

is this also a mistaken reversal flaw?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, good catch!

It's subtle enough that I would think (hope) that they wouldn't test nec/suff flaw this way, but you could justify it.

IF some makes of car were more common in certain regions
THAT WOULD LEAD many people to overestimate.

Since in this experiment, many people overestimated,
we can conclude, some makes of car are more common in certain areas

[obobob]

Hi kind of confused with this argument:

in the argument it says" I hypothesize that certain makes of car are more common in some regions of the nation than in other regions; obviously that would lead many people to overestimate how common their make of car is nationally."

So in essence, the researcher is hypothesizing the cause of the experiment's result: the researcher believes that the fact that certain makes of car are more common in some regions of the nation than in other regions IS THE the cause of the experiment's result.

Does the concludes that her hypothesized cause is indeed the real cause since she was able to confirm the result part of her hypothesis which is a causational statement (certain makes of cars are not distributed equally -- causes ---> lead more ppl to overestimate) ?

I was puzzled with this argument as I didn't think that confirming the result part of any causational relationship (including this one: certain makes of cars are not distributed equally -- causes ---> lead more ppl to overestimate) can be a support for any causational arguments.

Can someone please help me?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry for the late reply, never saw this post until now.

I don't really understand your question. It sounds like you're asking, "I don't understand how this flawed argument is correct."

Of course it's not correct. It's a flaw question!

Pretend I said:
"I hypothesize that Bob dropped a hammer on his foot. Obviously, that would lead him to limp for a little bit. That is precisely what we now see -- Bob is limping a little bit --- so, he must have dropped a hammer on his foot."

Why is that flawed?
Maybe there's a different explanation for why he's limping.
Just because the author's potential explanation COULD explain Bob's limp doesn't mean it MUST explain Bob's limp.

(B) for this argument would sound like
"The argument treats an observation that supports a hypothesis as a result that proves a hypothesis."

In order words, if I have the hypothesis that "Bob dropped a hammer on his foot", then the observation that Bob is limping lends some support to my hypothesis. However, it doesn't PROVE my hypothesis.

Hope this helps.