Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. Jay interprets Helena's statements to mean that biology isn't involved in sociability, not that it's only a partial role. Jay's point seems to be that it plays at least a partial role.

Incorrect. If this is what Jay thinks Helena meant, then his rebuttal doesn't make any sense. You can't rebut a "most" statement by pointing out "some" counterexamples.

Incorrect. Jay brings up counterexamples that are at least in the ballpark of serving as counterexamples. This answer has Jay misinterpreting Helena's statements to say the opposite of what she did, and so his response wouldn't make sense in that context.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Misinterpretation

Stimulus Summary:
H: Kids of introverts adopted by extroverts are more sociable than those not adopted, so biology doesn't determine extroversion.

J: Some of those adopted kids are still introverted, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

Answer Anticipation:
While this question doesn't bring up a misinterpretation, it does ask about how Jay interprets Helena's statements. If he interprets them correctly, then it'd just be asking what Helena said—which isn't an LSAT question. So this is a Misinterpretation question.

So we need to figure out what Jay thinks Helena said that doesn't match up with what she actually says. Since his argument is meant to rebut what she says, he must be rebutting the wrong argument. So let's start with what he does say, and then think about what view it would counter.

Jay brings up what is true of "[s]ome" children of introverts adopted by extroverts. These children don't end up as extroverts—they stay introverted. So he's attempting to rebut her argument with counterexamples. And in believing that "some" examples will serve to counter her view Jay must believe that Helena was making a categorical statement—that even a single example of a child's sociability being related to genetics will disprove her argument.

Does Helena draw such a categorical conclusion? Nope! She says that sociability isn't genetically "determined"—in other words it's not the only factor. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't believe it's a factor in it.

Think about this parallel example—your LSAT score won't be determined by how much you study. How you're feeling on test day what sections are hardest a bit of luck will all play a role as well. However that doesn't mean studying is irrelevant—it's still a factor even if it doesn't determine the outcome.

Similarly here Helena concludes that biology isn't the only piece of the puzzle but Jay treats her statements as if they say it is. Let's find an answer highlighting that misinterpretation around the word "determined."

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects Jay's misinterpretation of the word "determined." In bringing up some kids who seem to have had some biological influence on their sociability Jay must be rebutting the claim that biology has no influence on sociability. However Helena claims only that biology doesn't determine extroversion not that it doesn't influence it.

Key Takeaway:
One way to approach Misinterpretation questions is to focus on what the second speaker's claims would rebut. Doing so should highlight what he believed the original claims to be and then you can check that argument to see what is actually said that could be misinterpreted in such a way.

Incorrect. If Jay believed that Helena was saying that "sometimes" the environment is more influential than biology then he wouldn't bring up only "some" children to disprove it as that is too few children to rebut that claim!