PrepTest 112

[lcid:3547] Prep Test 112 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

High school students who Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

Generally - High school students who feel bad drop out
Two years ago - A program was instituted to improve morale
Last year - The dropout rate was significantly lower than the year before
Conclusion - The program reduced dropouts

Answer Anticipation

There are two elements to this stimulus that both point us to the same flaw.
First, the conclusion is causal - it even states that the reduction in dropouts is an “effect” of the program (which is therefore the cause). Second, it presents a timeline - the program was implemented, and then the dropout rate went down. Timelines - especially ones that show the cause showing up right before the effect did - present correlations that are frequently used to support causality.
So that’s what we have here - a Correlation/Causation flaw in a Weaken question. When that happens, we generally find the correct answer falls into one of three categories:
Identify an alternative cause (something else that could have led to the decreased dropout rate) Counterexamples (similar programs that didn’t work; dropout rates decreasing in school districts that didn’t have a similar program) Reversed causality (which makes no sense here because of the timeline)
Let’s look for one of the first two types of answers!

Answer choices

  1. A
    There was a recession Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    If there was a high level of unemployment in the city, then job prospects would be thin - and even thinner for a high school dropout. Since the stimulus notes that the dropouts do so to “go to work,” there not being work for them could explain why they stayed in school. This provides an alternative explanation for the decline in the dropout rate, so it weakens the argument.
  2. B
    The morale of students Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Just because the low morale was preexisting doesn’t mean that the program couldn’t work to improve it!
  3. C
    As in the preceding Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    That the dropouts are in the minority doesn’t mean that the number of them can’t be reduced, or that a morale-boosting program couldn’t be the reason for it.
  4. D
    High schools in the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    If this were the case, then it’d be easier for the dropouts to find employment, as they’d have assistance in doing so. This would suggest that it was easier to drop out of school, and so something really helped keep kids in school. If anything, that aligns with the program having a positive effect!
  5. E
    The antidropout program was Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Without discussing the outcome in those schools, we don’t know if this strengthens or weakens the argument. If the schools that had the program aimed at them saw a larger decrease in dropout rate than other schools, that strengthens the argument; if they didn’t, it weakens it. Since we don’t know, we can’t say this answer is correct.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion