Q25 - Formal performance evaluations

[bigtree65]

I chose E but I was a little unsure because it was question 25 and I thought that A might actually be it and there was a trick something like those 4 examples are not enough to support such a broad generalization. But I didn't see the word all so I decided the examples were good enough. Any thoughts on this one?

[noah]

FYI, the last question or two in an LR section is often easier than it looks. Make sure you leave enough time to get to those, as they can be easier points to grab than questions from 16-20, for example.

I agree that (A) is a tempting answer on this one. Let's take a look:

We're asked to find the flaw, so let's get to the core:

Conclusion: Students should have access to their textbooks during exams.

Why?: Because professionals have open book performance evals (and then there are some examples).

What's the gap? Well, as (E) notes, perhaps there's a different goal in giving a student a test and giving a professional a performance evaluation. In real-world terms, student tests are often to see if a student has absorbed knowledge, while a performance evaluation is often to evaluate one's performance under real conditions, which are often "open book" conditions.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is super tempting since the argument only provides two examples. However, we are told in the first sentence that formal performance evaluations are conducted using realistic situations. So, we need to accept that - even if those examples were not given, we would have to accept that as a premise. The gap that (A) is hinting at but not addressing is that perhaps these two examples don't justify applying an "open book" policy to a different setting.

(B) is out of scope - test scores?

(C) connects students and professionals, but that isn't an issue. The shared past experience is irrelevant. They're also both humans! Who cares?

(D) is tempting, but irrelevant. How long professionals have studied doesn't affect the argument - students still might deserve open-books. A similar answer would be "professionals are often older than students." Who cares?

[keonheecho]

FYI, the last question or two in an LR section is often easier than it looks. Make sure you leave enough time to get to those, as they can be easier points to grab than questions from 16-20, for example.

I agree that (A) is a tempting answer on this one. Let's take a look:

We're asked to find the flaw, so let's get to the core:

Conclusion: Students should have access to their textbooks during exams.

Why?: Because professionals have open book performance evals (and then there are some examples).

What's the gap? Well, as (E) notes, perhaps there's a different goal in giving a student a test and giving a professional a performance evaluation. In real-world terms, student tests are often to see if a student has absorbed knowledge, while a performance evaluation is often to evaluate one's performance under real conditions, which are often "open book" conditions.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is super tempting since the argument only provides two examples. However, we are told in the first sentence that formal performance evaluations are conducted using realistic situations. So, we need to accept that - even if those examples were not given, we would have to accept that as a premise. The gap that (A) is hinting at but not addressing is that perhaps these two examples don't justify applying an "open book" policy to a different setting.

(B) is out of scope - test scores?

(C) connects students and professionals, but that isn't an issue. The shared past experience is irrelevant. They're also both humans! Who cares?

(D) is tempting, but irrelevant. How long professionals have studied doesn't affect the argument - students still might deserve open-books. A similar answer would be "professionals are often older than students." Who cares?

Hi Noah, isn't the part of the stimulus (A) is referring to a subsidiary conclusion, because it is supported by "physicians are allowed to..." so if that's the case, why wouldn't (A) be a valid flaw? because we don't have to accept a subsidiary conclusion, and it does seem like the author is overlooking certain possibilities that could make this statement false.

Is it because (A) says that the examples are insufficient to SUPPORT the generalization? The examples do definitely at least support it...and if that is the reason why it's wrong, and we changed it to "the examples are insufficient to PROVE the generalization..." would that make this answer choice correct?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Your last point is definitely accurate. The four examples (physicians, attorneys, physicists, engineers) definitely support the generalization, but they do not prove it.

And you're right that sometimes there will be a move to a subsidiary conclusion that we do not like ... it's very rare, and if LSAT wants to test a subsidiary conclusion, they almost always include some reasoning trigger word like "since / after all / thus" to signal to us that there is some reasoning structure before we get to the final conclusion.

So since there's none of that here, I wouldn't expect LSAT to want me to attack the first claim. That said, your tweaked version of (A) is at least a descriptively accurate answer choice, so it would have some merit.

With Flaw answer choices, I tend to apply two filters to a correct answer:
1. Is this true? Did this happen in the argument?
2. Does it matter? Does it reflect a reasoning problem?

For example, this author "fails to consider that mustard is yellow". That is true. But does it matter?

What I'm getting at is that we should be more likely to consider the biggest issue to be the author's dubious move from equating the professional world with the academic world. The three biggest reasoning patterns on the test are Causality, Conditional Logic, and Comparisons. So I'm more worried about a leap from "apples" to "oranges" then I am about whether four examples was enough for me to go along with a certain generalization. (Would I really complain in any debate that FOUR examples was not enough and demand more?)

[keonheecho]

Your last point is definitely accurate. The four examples (physicians, attorneys, physicists, engineers) definitely support the generalization, but they do not prove it.

And you're right that sometimes there will be a move to a subsidiary conclusion that we do not like ... it's very rare, and if LSAT wants to test a subsidiary conclusion, they almost always include some reasoning trigger word like "since / after all / thus" to signal to us that there is some reasoning structure before we get to the final conclusion.

So since there's none of that here, I wouldn't expect LSAT to want me to attack the first claim. That said, your tweaked version of (A) is at least a descriptively accurate answer choice, so it would have some merit.

With Flaw answer choices, I tend to apply two filters to a correct answer:
1. Is this true? Did this happen in the argument?
2. Does it matter? Does it reflect a reasoning problem?

For example, this author "fails to consider that mustard is yellow". That is true. But does it matter?

What I'm getting at is that we should be more likely to consider the biggest issue to be the author's dubious move from equating the professional world with the academic world. The three biggest reasoning patterns on the test are Causality, Conditional Logic, and Comparisons. So I'm more worried about a leap from "apples" to "oranges" then I am about whether four examples was enough for me to go along with a certain generalization. (Would I really complain in any debate that FOUR examples was not enough and demand more?)

This helps clear things up a lot for me. Thank you!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

P1: Formal performance evaluations in the professional world are conducted using real life situations
P2: Physicians are allowed to consult medical texts, lawyers law books/case records and physicists/engineers have may use their manuals as reference.
C: Students should have access to their textbooks during examinations.

Flaw: Employs an argument by analogy, however the two things being analogized are dissimilar in a variety of ways.
It takes for granted that because professionals conduct performance evaluations by consulting texts, students should be able to consult texts during tests. We don't know that student examinations are the same as performance evaluations, and we students are not professionals.


(A) This is tempting because the stimulus only uses two examples to support the declarative statement at the start of the stimulus. The two statements may not sufficiently prove it, but they definitely support it. Eliminate
(B) Descriptively accurate due to the limited scope of the argument but it's not why the argument is wrong. It also fails to consider that the possibility adopting it will not enable students to win the lottery.
(C) Same as B
(D) Same as B and C
(E) Bingo