Q9 - A university study reported that

[noah]

This question asks us to identify a flaw, so having read the question stem before looking at the argument, we're going to be looking for problems that jump out at us right away - things like circular reasoning, insufficiency of data, a conclusion unsupported in scope by the premises, a faulty assumption. Any of these (and more) are fair game, so it often pays to keep a look out for problems even before you look at the answer choices. Often it helps to pay particular attention to the conclusion in looking for a flaw, since premises - as mere facts - cannot be wrong on their own but only insofar as they result to the larger conclusion.

Let's look at the conclusion before getting to the answer choices: "There is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results" because the studies used different methodologies and got different results (the part not in the quotes is added to give a very short summary of the reasoning of the argument). Well let's think about that before looking at the answer choices.

If you went to 2 different LSAT test prep companies that gave you practice tests, one rating you at a 155 and the other rating you at a 175, would you think that discrepancy didn't need to be explained just because the companies used different tests? Or let's say that you went to two different doctors, where one took an X-ray and the other checked your bones manually - would you be satisfied if they gave you different diagnoses? Of course note! Similarly here, there seems to be a problem with saying that it is reasonable for 2 different methodologies to give opposite answers.

Answer choice (D), the correct answer, gets right at this problem, noting that the author of the argument seems to have ignored the fact that different methods should produce similar or identical results. It matches almost exactly what we should have thought just from examining the conclusion.

Let's look at another answer choice just to see what an incorrect answer choice looks like. (B) says that the author fails to distinguish between the method of an investigation and the purpose of an investigation. But we don't know what the purpose of either of these studies were - to inform government policy? to prove an abstract economic theory? to justify lowering the minimum wage? Who knows? We certainly don't know from the argument.

When identifying a flaw, we are working entirely off what is in the argument. For that reason, it is particularly important to pay attention to scope and degree issues. Quite a number of the wrong answers in this question are out of scope.

[clarafok]

isn't C kind of like D? i chose C thinking that if only one of the studies were done properly, then there would be a reason to conduct further investigation to explain the difference in the studies' result.

i think instead of assuming that different methods could yield the same results, i just thought one of them must be wrong! could someone please help!

thanks in advance!

[itzakadoozie412]

So (A) is not a flaw committed by the argument since there's really no need to distinguish between studies produced for purposes of gov't/university research?
I still dont see why (D) is correct. How did it fail to recognize that 2 diff methods can yield identical results when clearly the arg states that 1 showed a significant decline and another showed a significant increase? What am I missing here?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument concludes that the different results of the two experiments can be explained by the different methods of investigation. This assumes that different methods of investigation will have different results. The problem here is in the assumption. The argument does fail to recognize that two different methods of investigation can have identical results since the argument simply assumes that different methods of investigation will have different results.

Think of answer choice (D) as attacking an assumption of the argument. Does that answer your question?

[chike_eze]

The way I understood this one was that the author made a conclusion that did not account for other explanations of the discrepancy between the two results.

Just because two studies are conducted using different methodologies does not necessarily mean that each study will result in a different outcome. The author fails to consider other possible reasons for the discrepancy. For example, one of the reports may not have been conducted properly (As stated in C.).

I think C could have been a good candidate if it was phrased thus: "fails to... acknowledge the possibility that at least one of studies was not conducted properly"

So, the argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to recognize that Method A and Method B, though different, could yield the same result (Correct=D).

However, if this were a strengthen/weaken question, I think (C), as it stands, would have been a good "weaken the argument" candidate, because it provides an alternative explanation of the discrepancy.

Thoughts??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice analysis of the argument - completely agree!

However, if this were a strengthen/weaken question, I think (C), as it stands, would have been a good "weaken the argument" candidate, because it provides an alternative explanation of the discrepancy.

Thoughts??

And yes... If this question asked us to weaken the argument and answer choice (C) stated:

(C) only one of the studies has been properly conducted

that would definitely undermine the conclusion for the difference in the studies' results being solely a result of the difference in methods of investigation.

[WaltGrace1983]

The problem with (C) is that, while being very close to a correct answer, it addresses something that never actually happens in the argument. Correct?

(C) seems to be a correct answer for an argument that goes something like this...

Study A reported that average workweek increased significantly, while study B - though flawed in its nature due to inaccurate measurement systems - reported that the workweek significantly decreased. Because these studies used different methods of investigation though, there is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results.

So as I thought before, the problem with (C) seems to be that what is discussed never happened - we never actually got any information pertaining to if one study versus another was properly or more properly conducted.

Right?

(E) is not right because we don't need to explain the premises (or perhaps, background information in this case).

Another question though, what would (B) be the correct answer to? Would it look something like the following...

Study A reported that average workweek increased significantly, while study B reported that the workweek significantly decreased. Because these studies used different methods of investigation though, it seems that the purposes of each are very disparate.

In addition, doesn't (A) actually happen though is not the flaw? It seems that we do in fact distinguish between the two studies as shown by "A university study reported....A government study reported...."


What do you guys and girls think? Thanks.

[BenF939]

What is the name of the specific error of reasoning in this question?

[AlisaS425]

isn't C kind of like D? i chose C thinking that if only one of the studies were done properly, then there would be a reason to conduct further investigation to explain the difference in the studies' result.

i think instead of assuming that different methods could yield the same results, i just thought one of them must be wrong! could someone please help!

thanks in advance!

Just add something that came to my mind when I solved this one.

At first, I was stuck between (C) and (D), and I thought both were perfect choices. But during blind review, I started to think (C) is kind of weird - if there's only one of the studies that has been properly conducted, then it kind of fits the author's conclusion, which is that we don't need to look further for an explanation of the difference towards the results, since only one of them is correct!

It seems to me that (C) is an assumption that is in the author's mind (in other words, the author DID NOT fail to consider (C)), and it is due to this assumption that leads to the author's conclusion - no need to look for the differences between the two studies.

Hope that clears up the reason why (C) is a wrong answer choice!

[Laura Damone]

One of the big issues with C is that it isn't something that is necessarily true. We have no evidence that one of the studies wasn't properly conducted, and we can't fault our argument for failing to recognize something unless we had evidence that the thing was true!

D, on the other hand, is necessarily true. 2 different methods can yield identical results. So when the argument chocks the difference in results up to the difference in method, it fails to recognize this possibility.

[HeatherF897]

Hi! So I'm reading the LR 5th Ed. After I read the stem & stimulus I ID'd the same issue as the book - that the author assumes that different methods is the only way studies can yield different results.

The problem is, I don't see how D disproves this. Even if different methods sometimes yield identical results, it could still be that no other reason could cause different results. In other words, if different methods only yield different results half of the time, but no other reasons exist in the universe, the reason for the differing results would still be the different methods.

I'm sure that I'm overthinking this somehow, but can you help correct my reasoning? Am I treating this as a necessary assumption/using a destroy the argument test where I shouldn't be?

Thank you in advance!!

[Laura Damone]

Hi!

Good work thinking so deeply on this one. Here are a couple things to help guide you out of the muck!

First, the Strategy Guide identifies this as the assumption: "the author assumes that because two studies used different methods of investigation and got different results, the different methods were the reason for the difference in the studies' results."

The book calls that a Causation flaw. The premise establishes a correlation between different methods and different results, but the conclusion purports a causal relationship: different methods led to different results.

That's a little different than the assumption you expressed: "that the author assumes that different methods is the only way studies can yield different results."

The author doesn't actually assume that it's the only way to get different results. S/he just assumed that it was the way these particular studies ended up with different results. You see the distinction?

Answer choice D attacks the real assumption. If two different methods can yield the same results, then the fact that we had two different methods doesn't explain the different results.

Ok, next up: your approach. You were IDing an assumption and looking for an answer that makes it impossible. Scrap that approach. Instead, when a flaw question stem includes "argument fails to," "argument overlooks the possibility that," or an equivalent phrase, treat the answer as though it is supposed to weaken the argument, not the assumption.

When I assess D, I ask myself "if this is true, does it hurt my argument?" And it does! If different methods can yield the same results, the the fact that these two studies had different methods doesn't necessarily explain their different results. It attacks the link between the correlation expressed in the premise and the causation claim made in the conclusion.

Hope this helps!