PrepTest 127

Incorrect. As long as the questions could determine overconfidence, it doesn't matter what topics those questions touch.

Incorrect. First, "at least some" is much more likely to be correct in a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question than a regular Strengthen question. Second, the argument doesn't require an accurate assessment of the odds of success—in fact, in relying on overconfidence as a factor in business creation, it's implying that those who start businesses likely don't have an accurate picture of their odds of success.

Incorrect. This answer does bring in another survey that highlights a correlation, but that correlation isn't between overconfidence and business formation, so it's out of scope. The stimulus itself doesn't actually care if the businesses succeed, just that they're formed!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
In a study of entrepreneurs and business managers, entrepreneurs were more overconfident than business managers. Thus, that overconfidence must lead to starting a business.

Answer Anticipation:
First, there's a study done, so we should consider a sampling flaw. The argument looked at entrepreneurs and business managers to assess something about those who create businesses. That's not a perfect analysis (the business managers could also have businesses they've started), but it's in the ballpark. There's also 100 members in each group, which will generally be sufficiently large to draw a non-specific generalization. Also, while the groups weren't randomly determined, the point of the study was to see if these two groups are inherently different in some way, so that's not an issue.

Second, in this study, a causal conclusion is reached—overconfidence is a factor in determining if someone is more likely to start a business. This is based on a correlation between overconfidence and entrepreneurship, so a correlation/causation flaw is present. That relationship can be strengthened in the normal ways—eliminate an alternative cause; find more examples of the cause and effect going together; establish a control group (i.e., those who lack confidence rarely start businesses).

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice highlights more examples of overconfidence leading to business formation, thus strengthening the likelihood of a causal relationship. It also hints at the sampling flaw we discussed—entrepreneur vs. business manager isn't a perfect proxy for those who have started a business vs. those who haven't.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever you run into an LSAT question featuring a survey, always start by looking for a sampling flaw, and then continue by seeing if the argument jumps from correlation to causation. Those are—by far—the most common flaws in argument featuring surveys/studies/polls, and so they're the perfect place to start.

Incorrect. The relevant correlation needs to be between their confidence and likelihood to start a business, not their confidence in their business acumen.