Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 1 · Question 23

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that almost every subject overestimated the prevalence of their car's make, so it's pretty clear that the vast majority didn't know the actual statistics and thus estimating what rate did is immaterial.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - People overestimate how common their car's make is
Hypothesis/Explanation - Certain makes are more common in certain regions, leading to people overestimating how common that make is
Premise - That hypothesis matches the study
Conclusion - The hypothesis is correct

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of information in the study itself, and it can be easy to get lost in that, but don't forget that you should start with the conclusion and then figure out what information is relevant in supporting it—this will keep you focused on what's relevant to the logic!

Here, the conclusion is that a hypothesis is correct. What supports that? The direct premise supporting it is that the outcome predicted by the hypothesis is precisely what was seen in the study that was done.

But of course it was! The hypothesis was made after seeing the results of the study, tailored to address those results. While the study is certainly evidence that the hypothesis could be correct, it in no way proves that it is, as this Researcher believes.

We don't even need to dive into the study itself, as it's not really relevant to the logic! The Researcher concludes that a hypothesis is correct because it aligns with the results of a study, but that just proves it could be right, not that it is.

Answer Explanation:
The study supports the Researcher's hypothesis, but that falls well short of proving it. The Researcher concludes, however, that her hypothesis must be true. This answer highlights that shift, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Hypotheses tend to be explanations for observed phenomena, so we can think about arguments featuring them as falling into the phenomenon/explanation structure. When we're in that structure, the question usually deals with alternative explanations. Here, while no specific alternative was mentioned, the correct answer did highlight that it ignored them and treated results that support a hypothesis—showing it's one potential explanation—as proving that hypothesis—which would mean it's the only explanation.

Incorrect. If anything, the subject pool coming from a wide variety of geographical regions would support the conclusion, so failing to overlook that possibility can't be a flaw.

Incorrect. The hypothesis aligns with the results of the study, so there are no contradictions.

Incorrect. There's no specific case discussed, so this answer doesn't describe the stimulus.