Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 1 · Question 26

Incorrect. This answer brings in another correlation, suggesting a factor in learning to write more automatically. This doesn't strengthen the relationship between learning to write more automatically and composing better.

Incorrect. This answer is tempting because it can feel as if it strengthens the correlation! However, it actually provides an alternative explanation for the composition improvement. If those students didn't need to work on their handwriting as much, they may have had more time to work on their composition. If it wasn't an increase in mental resources but rather an increase in time to practice that resulted in the increased composition, the argument is weakened. In general, you should be wary of any answer that deals in a different timeline than the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Research:
Sample - 100 first-graders who were given after-school handwriting lessons
Results - Those who saw the greatest composition skill increase learned to write letters the most automatically
Conclusion - Writing automatically frees up resources for composing

Answer Anticipation:
First, note that we rephrased the conclusion a bit. Since the conclusion is about "other activities," and the premises bring up a specific other activity, we should think about the conclusion as being related to that.

With that said, let's take a step back and think about the elements of the argument. When we have a study done, we should always consider a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw.

For the sampling flaw, a sample size of 100 isn't usually going to lead to an answer about sample size being too small. The conclusion is broad, applying to more than just first-graders. However, that's probably around when most people are learning to write, so it's unclear that this sample is unrepresentative. While an answer may more directly establish that the same is representative to strengthen the argument, we shouldn't expect that.

For the correlation/causation flaw, almost all studies will present results as a correlation, and that's true here. The first-graders with the most improved composition skills are also the ones who learned to write letters the most automatically. But is the conclusion causal? Yep—producing characters more automatically has an effect—it frees up mental resources to do other things, such as learn to compose better, or actually compose better. Since this argument jumps from correlation to causation, we can look for the usual answers in a Strengthen question with that flaw:
(1) Eliminate an alternative cause
(2) Find more examples of cause and effect going together
(3) Establish a "control" - an example of no cause/no effect (this is less likely since the argument itself creates a "sliding scale" correlation by stating that the group with the most of one characteristic also had the most of another)

Answer Explanation:
This is an interesting answer. It deals in the same timeline as the research, which makes it a better answer than (B). And it does strengthen the correlation. If the pace of the development of writing letters tracked with the pace of composition skill development, then that increases the likelihood that one was causing the other, strengthening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Temporal elements are important on the LSAT—especially when causality is involved. Make sure that an answer you're picking in a correlation/causation Strengthen question aligns with the timeline of the stimulus.

Incorrect. First, the conclusion is about more than just first-graders, so making the group in question representative of all first-graders doesn't help the argument. Second, the relevant measurement is the improvement of these characteristics. As such, the sample doesn't need to be representative of the baseline skill level—it has to be representative of how these characteristics change with training. If the group was less talented than average, the impact of improving on these skills might still be representative of what would happen when children with above-average skills improve them.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that the causality might be reversed, with higher composition skill freeing up mental resources to focus on writing letters automatically.