Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. This answer might explain why the group was more accurate during the first round of questioning, but not why they were less accurate in the second round.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer might explain the higher accuracy in round 1 but not the shift to lower accuracy in round 2.

Ccorrect. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Experiment:
(1) Show volunteers a simulated crime
(2) Have a lawyer get them to misremember details
(3) Have a lawyer get them to correct the misremembered details

The group that was most accurate during Step 2 was least accurate during Step 3.

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's appreciate the LSAT's attempt to confuse us with much more difficult language than necessary! All that wordiness around testimony that contained fewer and more inaccurate details could have been much more easily summarized as "more/less accurate" testimony. If a group has more details right, they're more accurate, and vice versa.

So we have a group that was more accurate than the other group during the first round of questioning and less accurate during the second round of questioning. This is the group that the question stem tells us the paradox surrounds, so we should start by identifying what that paradox is. Here, the paradox is how a group that was so relatively accurate in the first round was relatively inaccurate in the second.

There's an important word there— "relatively." The argument doesn't state that the group that was more accurate than the other group in the first round of questioning was less accurate overall in the second round—just that they were more inaccurate than the other group. The argument is set up to make you think that the group it's asking about became more inaccurate during the second round of questioning, but it really only establishes that they were more inaccurate compared to the other group. We know that group was influenced by the first lawyer, so it's possible that they're the ones that changed.

To look at a specific possibility to highlight this explanation, let's call the group that went from more to less accurate as Group 1, and the other as Group 2. Let's say that Group 1 was 80% accurate in the first round of questioning with their details, and 85% in the second round of questioning. How does that line up with the stimulus? Well, let's say that Group 2 was 40% accurate in round 1 (making Group 1 more accurate than them) and 90% accurate in round 2 (making Group 1 less accurate than them). This would conform to the details in the stimulus, but Group 1 actually increased their accuracy! The second group was much more susceptible to suggestion from the lawyers.

Let's find an answer bringing up this possibility.

Answer Explanation:
This answer aligns with the possibility that we outlined in the Anticipation step. If this group largely answered based on their memories without being influenced by the questioning, they could have had essentially the same accuracy each round while the other group's accuracy varied from very low to very high, shifting the relative accuracy level of the two groups without the absolute accuracy of the first group shifting much.

Key Takeaway:
Paradox questions frequently deal with comparisons, so you should be on the lookout for such language. Here, the discussion of accuracy was relative, not absolute, which was key to finding the correct answer.

Incorrect. This seems to make the paradox worse, suggesting the accuracy should have improved over time.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't address why there was a shift in accuracy—if they were always answering with more details, why were the later answers less accurate compared to the other group?