Q24 - The local radio station will

[aileenann]

This is a particularly tough question type for many students I've taught. I always find the best thing to do is to (at the very least) break the argument into simpler language so that it's logical mechanics become clearer. I'd recap this argument as below:

-The local station won't win (note to self - this is an extreme statement - they are not saying probably).
-They won't win because they have not won and they are not trying to get better. -Meanwhile their competition is trying to get better.

Notice here that although the conclusion is fairly absolute in its terms, the evidence is not - really only relying on trend data that is more probabilistic than logically certain. Let's keep this in mind as we look at the answer choices.

(A) is not the answer because the conclusion uses "probably" - that means it's not too logically close to our conclusion, which is so certain in its language.

(B) has the same problem as (A). (B) also has a logical problem in itself (the idea of predicting a fair coin with certainty) that we don't have in the original argument.

(C) provides evidence ("all lions are mammals") that is too certain - the evidence in our argument above is more probabilistic than certain.

(D) looks great and is our answer. It uses probabilistic/trend evidence to get to a certain conclusion.

(E) has the same problem as (C).

This is a tough problem. It would be worth doing this problem more than once to make sure you really understand it, and better than that, that you could explain it to a friend. Please follow-up if you have specific questions about this problem. We are always happy to have more student input on our forum

[perfectparadise1]

I am a little phased by this question. Generally in Parallel reasoning type questions the correct answer has to display similar allowances as the argument in the question. For instance if a green bird can fly faster than a blue bird since green birds are known to have a crack addiction then the parallel answer that is correct isn't brown rats are smarter than black rats since God made them that way but rather something noting an action, quality, or circumstance that separates the two rat "races." In this question we are told that the local radio manager has DONE NOTHING while the other radio managers have taken extra measures. E nor any of the choices reflects this. For this reason Q24 gets my WTF for the week. Please elaborate on what's going on here.

[aileenann]

I wouldn't worry at all if this question was particularly tricky for you. It's # 24 in the section, meaning statistically it's almost definitely going to be one of the hardest in the section. Specifically, when I say hardest, I mean with one of the least satisfying right answers and also with somewhat less than standard logical distinctions or lack of distinctions made by the LSAT. Unfortunately, especially on the hardest questions, there simply isn't a formula - we've just got to brave our way through using logic.

I think your "doing nothing" distinction could be helpful on a lot of similar LSAT arguments, but you want to be careful not to be wedded to your logic. Here, I'd say there are two problems with looking at the question that way. First, we don't know that the manager has done nothing. We only know that he hasn't changed personnel or musical format (query whether you are importing your own assumptions about the totality of options available to to the manager). There could be other changes the manager has made.

Second, as (D) shows us, we don't know that this is the only salient way to categorize the manager's actions - doing nothing vs. doing something. There are other ways to think about this argument/situation, such as past v. future.

I hope this helps. Definitely follow up if you have more queries or thoughts on this one

[wguwguwgu]

So the only problem of B is the word "probably"? It would be OK without it?

thanks in advance!

[wguwguwgu]

AHHH never mind, I saw the BIG problem of B now. The stimulus is talking about an event whose outcome can influenced by human activities, hence the "station manager" comment as a supporting evidence. But B is talking about a random event, where the previous outcomes are totally irrelevant.

Was too much caught in looking for most similar structure

[js_martin01]

I'm going to phrase this one using a very similar method as Aileen.

A simple way of finding the correct answer to this question is by approaching it from a broader, structural perspective.

The stimulus posits a temporal relationship predicting what will occur in the future based on past events. Specifically, because X has never done Y, it is unlikely that X will do Y in this year's race.

This relationship is best expressed in answer choice D. The structure matches, as does the logical force of the conclusion.

B is close, but it misses the mark with its conclusion, which states that the next flip will "probably" be heads. This does not match the logical force of the stimulus' conclusion, which boldly asserts that an event "will not" occur.

I hope this helps!

[zip]

Great explanation, Aileen. I answered D the first time I tried the question. Alas, the test material I was using incorrectly identified A as the correct answer and I did not have access to the actual test at the time. So I was befuddled and thought that the LSAT had just given us a stinker question. I tried to reason that maybe the ten years versus recently was the issue, but I did not find this explanation persuasive. I'm glad to have discovered that the choice that made sense based on all I know about parallel reasoning was in fact correct. I actually think that aside from the time constraints the fact that two arguments were valid and the other two used probably in their conclusions makes this a very doable question as long as one sticks to the fundamentals of analyzing the parallel reasoning questions.

[niksethi12]

Perhaps I'm doing this wrong, but this is how I solved it.

First break it down. The two reasons why the station will not win:

1. Statistics. - Hasn't happened in the past, won't happen in the future-

2. Hasn't changed to demand while others have changed to demand.

Because the statistics is based on data, there isn't anything inherently wrong with the inference. So if we take this among the answer choices

A) This is a flaw, so it can't be right.

B) This is a flaw. A fair coin means it is a 50-50 chance every time. So for it to be "probably" heads is a wrong inference to make. It has to have an equal chance, otherwise, it wouldn't be a fair coin

C) Completely random. Valid Argument, but this hits none of the similar reasons why the stimulus' conclusion was correct

D) Pretty decent inference. Hits the statistics point. Stock prices are by no means random, so this is a contender.

E) Valid, but like (C), this is has no bearing to the reasoning in the stimulus.

[amil91]

Perhaps I'm doing this wrong, but this is how I solved it.

First break it down. The two reasons why the station will not win:

1. Statistics. - Hasn't happened in the past, won't happen in the future-

2. Hasn't changed to demand while others have changed to demand.

Because the statistics is based on data, there isn't anything inherently wrong with the inference. So if we take this among the answer choices

A) This is a flaw, so it can't be right.

B) This is a flaw. A fair coin means it is a 50-50 chance every time. So for it to be "probably" heads is a wrong inference to make. It has to have an equal chance, otherwise, it wouldn't be a fair coin

C) Completely random. Valid Argument, but this hits none of the similar reasons why the stimulus' conclusion was correct

D) Pretty decent inference. Hits the statistics point. Stock prices are by no means random, so this is a contender.

E) Valid, but like (C), this is has no bearing to the reasoning in the stimulus.

I think you're mistaken in thinking the correct answer cannot have a flaw in it. The argument in the stimulus has a flaw in it, just because something has happened in the past does not mean it will happen in the future, even with statistical evidence that is strong and even with an indication that nothing will be changed, it is still a flaw to make a declaratory statement like 'will not win' perhaps if the stimulus said probably will not win it would not contain this flaw. So eliminating answer choices because they have a flaw, for this question is incorrect.

Here is how I went about eliminating the answer choices:
A - Does not represent a past - future relationship or prediction.
B - 'probably' in the conclusion vs. 'will not' in the conclusion of the stim.
C - Does not represent a past - future relationship and in fact is not flawed at all, like the stim, it has a whole - part relationship that is in fact correct.
E - Also does not represent a past - future relationship. The logical structure of E is very similar to C, whole - part relationship that is valid.