PrepTest 110

Incorrect. First, there's no indication the government study was done for the purposes "of the operation" of the government. Second the stimulus does distinguish between the two studies.

Incorrect. The purpose behind these two studies isn't discussed, nor is it necessarily relevant to the conclusion (remember, purpose doesn't determine outcome).

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about the correctness of the studies; it's about what resulted in the different answer to the same question. As such, the argument doesn't care if either of the studies were properly conducted.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — Two studies that used different methods yielded different results
Explanation — The different methods explain the different results

Answer Anticipation:
While a bit more abstract than the usual Phenomenon/Explanation passage, this answer definitely falls into that pattern. In fact, the conclusion specifically mentions that it's bringing up an explanation!

Whenever an argument concludes an explanation for a given phenomenon (here, the different results), we should consider whether it's flawed because it ignores alternative explanations. Here, the only evidence that the different methods explain the different results is that the studies used different methods and ended up with different results! That's a correlation—it doesn't prove that the different methods did, in fact, lead to those different results.

As such, any answer that brings up or mentions the possibility of an alternative cause will serve to address this question stem.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't bring up an alternative explanation, but it does call the author's explanation into question. If different methods can result in identical results, then the different methods here aren't necessarily responsible for the different results. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
A common pattern for LSAT arguments is the Phenomenon/Explanation pattern. When it's present, the flaw is usually a failure to consider alternative explanations (or a failure to fully rule them out).

Incorrect. The argument isn't over whether the workweek's length has changed or what caused it, but rather what can explain the opposite results from two studies on the question.