Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. The conclusion is just about "these secretaries," not all workers, so it doesn't generalize from the sample in the survey.

Incorrect. The premises don't state that the attitude caused the excellent performance—they offer a correlation between those two phenomena. A jump from correlation to causation doesn't make for a circular argument, as this answer describes.

Incorrect. If they're excellent at those activities, as well, that aligns with the argument, so failing to consider this possibility isn't inherently a problem for the argument.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the use of "positive attitudes" in the conclusion means anything other than enjoying their work, which would be the same meaning as in its initial use. There's no ambiguous word usage here.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
In a survey, the clerical workers who had the most positive attitudes were rated more highly by their supervisors, so their positive attitude caused their great job performance.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two signs here pointing to a correlation/causation flaw—a survey was done (and the results of surveys tend to be correlations), and the conclusion is causal ("produced").

The premises establish that those clerical workers with the most positive attitudes also had the best ratings from their supervisors—a correlation. From that, the argument concludes that the attitudes caused the excellent job performance—a causal relationship. That's a jump from a correlation to causation, which is one of the most common logical fallacies on the LSAT.

While the answer might state that the argument treats a correlation as establishing causality, it could also dive into specifics, and there are three common explanations for why correlation doesn't equal causation on the LSAT. The first is that the two are a coincidence, though the LSAT uses this one less frequently. The second is that there's another cause leading to both observed phenomena, which is a possibility here. The third is that the causal relationship is reversed, and this answer tends to be correct when it makes sense.

And it does make sense here! It's 100% within the realm of possibility that being excellent at one's job gives one a positive attitude towards that job, and not the other way around. Let's look for this answer while staying open to any correlation/causation answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is the only one that mentions causality, so it has to be correct. It also describes a reverse causality flaw, which we anticipated since it made sense in this context.

Key Takeaway:
Correlation/causation flaws tend to have answers reflecting reversed causality when that reverse relationship makes sense. While that's most common in questions that are on the topic of medicine, it's also possible in other topics, as we saw here.