Q5 - Researchers asked 100

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
There is reason to be skeptical of the claim that the survey responses show that 50-year-olds are more altruistic than 20-year-olds. Why? Well, it could be that the pressure to conform to societal pressure is the reason instead.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument argues against one possible explanation for why a survey showed nearly twice as many fifty-year-olds as 20-year-olds sometimes gave blood (greater altruism) by offering an alternative explanation (the pressure to conform to societal pressure)

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) describes a different mechanism, that undermines a previously stated position, than we see in Garcia's argument.

(B) is correct. This is a common reasoning structure on the LSAT. We often undermine arguments on the LSAT that offer an explanation for an observed phenomenon by providing a competing explanation or support such arguments by eliminating a competing explanation. In this case we're simply asked to describe the mechanism.

(C) incorrectly describes the argument. The argument made no such claim.

(D) describes flawed reasoning. The argument above is perfectly valid.

(E) describes a different mechanism, that undermines a previously stated position, than we see in Garcia's argument.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning Structure: Causation

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Hi,

I don't understand how the last sentence is the alternative explanation...
I chose C because I thought the last sentence means they hide it (=hesitate to admit) so they cannot observe altruism.

Why is C wrong and B correct?

[LsatCrusher822]

For C to be correct, the author would have to say something like:
"The act of donating blood does not imply altruism, because there is no reliable way to quantify, measure or see generosity."

The counter evidence that we have though is that many people hesitate to admit to behavior that doesn't fit society's expectations, casting doubt whether it was altruism that we measured or whether people simply just answered yes to the blood donation surgery because society expected them to.

A) I was actually drawn to this because perhaps if people are hesitant to admit to something that society doesn't condone, then this could make the sample skewed. However, the whole issue of unrepresentativeness is typically used on this test by taking a small sample to represent the overall population. This answer would be correct if the counter evidence showed how the 50 year olds surveyed were more likely to do acts of kindness than other 50 year olds, or that the 20 year olds were more unlikely to donate blood than other 20 year olds.

B) This is the correct answer because the last sentence of the stimulus provides us another reason to explain why more 50 year olds surveyed that 20 year olds donated blood. This stimulus is a quite common pattern that comes up in older PTs...

Study results
Person A makes a statement to explain the results
Author comes saying, not so fast (i.e., However, Nevertheless, But, etc."
Results can be explained by something else

C) see explanation above
D) no ad hominem going on here...
E) where is this "specific" counter example?

[AviS649]

Answer C is wrong for multiple reasons. First, the survey is not observing altruism, but recording reports of altruistic behavior based on people's self-reports. Second, even if the survey was observing altruism, C is a lot stronger than what the reasoning is suggesting. To say that one cannot directly see altruism is different than saying that one cannot directly observe altruism in [i]this[/i] specific case. The former would be universal and apply to all observations, and that is not what the author is suggesting.

Answer A can be tempting because arguably the survey results are flawed for being potentially unrepresentative. But we have to keep the arguer's reasoning in mind because that is what the question is asking about. The question is not asking for us to identify a flaw, but identify the flaw the argument identifies itself. And that flaw is not about unrepresentative-ness, but about the existence of confounding factors that undermine the result's validity.

[MingL143]

I chose C,

I prephrased that "The author assumes that many fifty-year-olds lied in the research while most of twenty-year-olds who reported to have give blood didn’t lie about it", Also " The author assumes that giving blood is societal expectations.
The author fails consider that those being surveyed do not believe giving blood is a societal expectations.
The argument questioned the researchers’ conclusion on the grounds that giving blood is a societal expectations."

[ohthatpatrick]

You're treating this question like it's from the Assumption Family. It's not.
We're not critiquing it, trying to find assumptions and think of objections.

This is a Describe task. We just need to characterize how the argument worked:
- eliminate competing alternatives?
- present an analogy?
- make a distinction?
- define a term?
- provide an alternate interpretation of evidence?
- present an example / counterexample to a general principle?

These are the most common types of structures you see on questions like this.

I think you were interpreting the argument correctly. It's assuming that societal expectations are to give blood, and so maybe the 50 year olds felt more guilty about not living up to that ideal and so hesitated to admit that they don't give blood (i.e lied).

But all we're trying to do is find an answer that matches the argument.

(C) doesn't match because the author never talks about whether or not you can directly observe altruism.

(B) matches because what we essentially had was this:
- there's a study where twice as many 50 year olds vs. 20 year olds say they donate blood.
- the study's authors explain that data by saying that 50 year olds are more altruistic.
- but there's reason to be skeptical
- another way to explain that data is to say that 50 year olds are more willing to lie about their lack of donating blood.