Q3 - Restaurant manager: In response

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, i am wondering why is C incorrect. I picked C, because people do not order this dish does not mean they dont prefer it? Isnt what C was trying to imply?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not exactly. The difference between what people say they want and what they actually want is not the same as the difference between what they want and what they order.

The argument simply never introduces what the patrons "say they want." So answer choice brings in an issue that doesn't come up.

The structure of this argument is the critical pattern to understand. it is all over the logical reasoning section, and once you see it, and know how to address it within each of the respective question types, the test is one notch easier.

Evidence: an observed phenomenon (people not ordering 3rd item)
Conclusion: an explanation (people prefer not to eat potatoes)

To strengthen such an argument, eliminate a competing explanation. To weaken it, provide a competing explanation. To discuss the flaw, say the argument forgot to consider alternative explanations - as answer choice (E) says.

Incorrect Answers

(A) addresses another flaw of causation. Some people confuse explanations for causation. The critical difference is that with explanations, there is no established correlation in the evidence.
(B) addresses another flaw. Incompatible claims are an issue in argumentative reasoning, but are not present in this argument.
(C) is close, but the argument didn't confuse what people prefer for what people order, it posited preference as an explanation for what people order. It forgot to consider possible alternative explanations.
(D) is not true. The argument does not generalize from beliefs to fact. The argument does not introduce a claim about what people think or believe to be true.

[WaltGrace1983]

No one orders the potato dish
→
Out patrons prefer not to eat potatoes

Couldn’t there be other reasons for not eating potatoes? Maybe they want to order the most expensive meal to impress people? Maybe they don’t like the cheese? There could be many reasons yet the author is just asserting one reason.

(A) This is just simply not happening. What are the two things? The ordering of other dishes and the ~ordering of the potato dish? The conclusion is simply saying nothing about the cause. This answer choice is just very weak.
(B) The conclusion seems to follow. I mean, obviously the premises do not justify the conclusion but the conclusion can be (incorrectly) inferred from the premise. (I just posted this in the General Questions Forum; maybe a Geek can help me out with the understanding of "inconsistent"
(D) No one is "holding this claim" (the conclusion) to be true except the manager. It would be different if the premise stated "some people interviewed said that they don’t like the potatoes and therefore people in general don’t prefer to eat potatoes"

Now onto the tricky one...

(C) states that the argument is ignoring the difference between what people "say they want" and what they "choose." Choosing is referring to the actual ordering of the food, we presume. However, we know nothing about what these customers "say they want." Maybe they "say they want" the eggplant casserole but choose the brown rice. We don’t know and this, even if true, would still not necessarily undermine the conclusion.

(E) is where the good stuff is. There could be many reasons why they don’t order the potato dish yet the manager fails to acknowledge this.

[WaltGrace1983]

What if (C) was "ignores the possible difference between what people prefer and what people order"? That seemingly could be a right answer, correct? Maybe people do prefer potatoes but only order another dish for X, Y, and Z reason?

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

Yeah, I'd agree with that variation!

-t