PrepTest 111
[lcid:3540] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Statistician: A financial magazine
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Bizarro / Strengthen Questions
Answer choices
-
AThe credibility of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. This answer can be tempting because we know attacking the source of a claim instead of the claim itself can be a flaw. However, that flaw requires bringing up irrelevant considerations to dismiss the opposing point. Here, the magazine's credibility speaks to whether they're accurately reporting survey results, and the argument doesn't dismiss their conclusion—it just states that there's reason to be skeptical. As such, this answer does provide a reason to be skeptical, and so it strengthens the argument. -
BThe conclusions drawn in Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. If magazine surveys tend to be bad, then there's reason to be skeptical of any of them—including this one. -
COther surveys suggest that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. If there are surveys that came to a different conclusion from the one in the magazine, then there's reason to be skeptical of those results! -
DThere is reason to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. The Statistician pointed out that the survey question was biased and the sample was self—selecting—in other words, unrepresentative. If that's sufficient justification to be skeptical of the results, then the argument is valid, so this answer strengthens it. -
EOther surveys suggest that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Bizarro Strengthen
Stimulus Summary:
Financial magazine: Our survey shows people are more concerned about finances than politics
Statistician: One question was biased, and the sample was self—selecting, so it's reasonable to be skeptical of that conclusion.
Answer Anticipation:
The Statistician points out two flaws with a survey in order to call the conclusion of that survey into question. As such, we should expect answers that highlight how the two flaws that were pointed out truly do apply.
The first flaw is that a question comparing politics and personal finances was biased. The second is that the sample was self—selecting. Any answers that highlight the truth of these assertions or add evidence for them will strengthen the argument.
Also note what the conclusion says, specifically—it's not that the results of the survey are wrong, just that there's reason to be skeptical of those results. As such, any answer that raises a reason that we can't be certain that the results are accurate will serve to strengthen this argument—which is, admittedly, a low bar!
Answer Explanation:
The Statistician is skeptical of the survey results stating that people care more about personal finances than politics. This answer doesn't speak to the relative concern people show between those two topics, and a third topic is out of scope, so this answer doesn't have any effect on the argument and is thus correct.
Key Takeaway:
When in a Strengthen question, always think about what level of evidence would help to justify the conclusion. Here, since the conclusion was just that we should be skeptical of a conclusion drawn from a survey, the type of information that would support it is different than if we were trying to strengthen a conclusion that the survey's conclusion was wrong.
What this tests
Discussion
-
"long term effects" 1 reply
Started by noname
-
How can I eliminate A? 2 replies
Started by b_theo
-
Please explain 4 replies
Started by KDA86