Q5 - Scholar: Recently, some religions have updated

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Strengthen. If you saw this as ID the Flaw, there's nothing wrong with that. However, since the prompt says the argument "presumes without giving sufficient justification", the answer will point out an assumption of the argument. Since the answer will be an assumption of the argument, the answer must strengthen the argument.

Stimulus Breakdown:
Religions have recently updated texts. Religions have recently seen an increase in attendance. Therefore, modernizing will help religions grow.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is the quintessential Correlation/Causation argument. The correct answer will have to deal with that causal connection.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Degree. The argument relies on this process working for religions that try it, but it doesn't assume it would work for all religions. That "all" makes this answer too extreme.

(B) Out of scope. The argument only cares about updating and attendance; the message, it seems, doesn't matter!

(C) Bingo. This answer straight up says that the correlation has the causal relationship the author jumps to in the conclusion.

(D) Tempting, but a reversal. The argument relies on this process always working (modernize → increase attendance); this answer states the reverse (increase attendance → modernize).

(E) Out of scope/temporal. The conclusion speaks to an immediate effect, not necessarily one that will persist. For this answer to be in play, the conclusion would have to say something similar to, "This shows that religions can maintain their relevance long into the future by..."

Takeaway/Pattern:
When you find an argument that is a great example of a specific flaw, spend some time with it to get a "feel" for that flaw. This is a perfect Correlation/Causation example.

#officialexplanation

[AyakiK696]

Even though this is a super easy question, I actually was caught between C and E and ended up going with the latter because I saw two flaws: a) correlation/causation and b) increases in attendance -> increases in worshippers. I don't know why I gave the latter more weight, but would this kind of term shift ever count as a flaw in an argument? My reasoning for choosing this answer was that you can't equate "attendance" with "increased worshippers," i.e. just because people attended once doesn't necessarily mean they will continue to attend? Not sure if I'm just extrapolating way too far outside of the argument.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct that "an increase in attendance" does not necessarily mean "an increase in worshipers".

However, it goes WITH common sense to think that increases of attendance at places of worship means that there are more religious observers (i.e. worshipers) in attendance.

It fights the current of common sense to think that these increases of attendance are purely people who are there for non-religious reasons.

Any time I've ever seen them give us an argument that had the two flaws you mentioned, Correlation ≠ Causality and Term Shift, the correct answer has been about the Causal conclusion.

They just throw in those term shifts to hope people get distracted from the argument's having committed LSAT's most famous flaw.

I think your interpretation of "Just because they attended ONCE" is not quite what was suggested by the 2nd sentence. I hear the 2nd sentence more as "avg attendance numbers are up, since we made this change".

Your concern that these new attendees might drop out of the ranks is fair.
We could also worry that are traditional attendees might eventually drop out of attendance because they DON'T like the modernization.

The problem is (E) is that it's accusing the author of assuming that a certain change is IRREVERSIBLE, that it is impossible to reverse it.

Do you take from the conclusion that the author is saying, "Once you modernize and see an increase in the number of worshipers, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to get your attendance back to its old numbers?"

I don't hear anything close to that extreme.

(E) could be tempting if it said the author presumes that
"the growth in attendance is not just a temporary uptick"
or
"the growth in attendance will not eventually alienate large numbers of traditional worshipers"