Q5 - Kennel club members who frequently

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken (Looks like Flaw, but all answers are prefaced by "fails to consider the possibility that …")

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Disciplining dogs actually just encourages misbehavior.
Evidence: There's a correlation between disciplining dogs and misbehaving dogs.

Answer Anticipation:
We're always evaluating Correlation vs. Causality with the same two pressure points: 1. OTHER ways to explain the same correlation 2. Plausibility of Author's Causal Story As we consider other ways to explain the same correlation, our first thought should always be "reverse causality", i.e. has the author failed to consider that what she thinks is the cause and the effect are actually backwards? Maybe the correlation between disciplining and misbehaving is because the MISBEHAVING causes the disciplining, not the other way around. That's such a plausible objection in this case that I would probably feel confident just going to the answers looking for that sort of answer.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Bingo! Reverse causality.

(B) It doesn't weaken the author if we know that dogs learn how their owners will react. It only weakens the author if dogs start to improve their behavior in order to avoid angering their owners.

(C) "Other than dogs" immediately reveals this is out of scope.

(D) This does nothing but maybe strengthen. We MIGHT have been able to weaken the argument by offering an alternate explanation for the evidence like "It’s not the disciplining itself that's causing the misbehavior, it's just the incompetent dog raising abilities of these kennel club members". Since this answer rules out that alternate explanation, it actually drifts toward strengthening.

(E) We don't really need to compare kennel club members to other dog owners. The statistic we're trying to explain is showing an asymmetry among the kennel club members, not an asymmetry between kennel club and other dog owners.

Takeaway/Pattern: The single biggest pattern in LR is to present a correlation between X and Y and then conclude that X caused Y. We want to always consider alternate explanations (maybe Y causes X, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe Z causes both X and Y) or otherwise look for answers that increase/decrease the plausibility that X causes Y.

#officialexplanation

[tara_amber1]

This question was fairly easy to me but I'm in the process of breaking down each question on this practice test as the September LSAT draws nearer.

Correct Answer: (A)
Question type: Flaw

The error in the argument is that we see a correlation moving to a causal conclusion. The argument states that dogs that are frequently disciplined are more misbehaved than dogs that are not disciplined regularly. It then concludes on the basis of this that it must be the frequent discipline causes the misbehavior.

However, it can be true that those dogs need more discipline because they are so misbehaved. They dig up all your plants and destroy all your shoes. As a result, they need to know the consequences and as a Kennel club member/owner of the dog, you need to prevent this from happening again. So, the misbehavior is actually the cause, and the frequent discipline is the effect.

(A) The correct answer, says exactly this. And if we anticipated the flaw in the argument, this should have been easy to spot.

(B) This assumes something that's not stated in the stimulus, and does not detect the flaw. Out.

(C) We aren't concerned with what other animals do. We're talking about dogs.

(D) "than are other dog owners?" The argument specifically refers to Kennel club member and two different groups of dog disciplines.

(E) This commits the same error as D.