PrepTest 111

Incorrect. What's relevant is if the subjects had reason to believe that they were correct, not if they were actually correct. This answer is thus out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument isn't about whether it's realistic to expect people to revise their beliefs, just whether they do or do not continue to hold the same beliefs.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), the truth or misleading nature of the statements is immaterial—the argument is about what evidence people believe to be true.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Study — People read statements and formed beliefs based on them. They were then told the statements were false, but still held the beliefs.
Conclusion — People believe stuff even if they lack credible evidence for them

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features a study, so we should start by considering a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw.

The argument doesn't feature a causal conclusion (if anything, it's the opposite in that learning information is false doesn't cause a reevaluation of beliefs), so we can rule that flaw out. And the sample is from "several" studies with no indication that the sample was too small or unrepresentative so it's unlikely the answer will deal with the sample (it could by introducing a way that the sample is unrepresentative but that's rare).

So let's head to the conclusion to see if it's about the same situation as the stimulus. It discusses people believing things even when they lack credible evidence for those beliefs. The study does feature new beliefs formed by individuals and it does bring up that the evidence leading to those beliefs was shown to be false. However that's not the same as showing that the people have no credible evidence supporting the beliefs. Since there was time between the formation of the beliefs and being told that the baseline information was false ("Later") it's possible that the individuals found other confirming information in the meantime. Let's find an answer bringing up that there may have been independent verification of their views between the two "parts" of the study.

One note before heading to the answers—this situation is very much based on subjective things. What do the volunteers believe and what information do they know backing it up? Answers that are about the truth of these statements/beliefs will likely be out of scope whereas answers about what the volunteers believed or knew are more likely to be correct. This Perception vs. Reality issue isn't the most common on the LSAT but it is relevant when it shows up in a question!

Answer Explanation:
If in between forming the beliefs and learning the statements they read were false the people read more statements backing up that belief then they did have credible evidence for those beliefs even after learning the initial statements were false. As such the conclusion doesn't follow since the people in the study didn't persist in beliefs that they lacked credible evidence for weakening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Studies tend to have correlation/causation flaws and sampling flaws. When neither is present check to see if the conclusion matches up with the details of the study!

Incorrect. Their initial skepticism is out of scope—it's what they do after the initial statements were shown to be false that matters.