Please take a moment to complete the following problem:
1. People with high blood pressure are generally more nervous and anxious than people who do not have high blood pressure. This fact show that this particular combination of personality traits—the socalled hypertensive personality—is likely to cause a person with these traits to develop high blood pressure.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) fails to define the term “hypertensive
personality”
(B) presupposes that people have permanent
personality traits
(C) simply restates the claim that there is a
“hypertensive personality” without
providing evidence to support that claim.
(D) takes a correlation between personality traits
and high blood pressure as proof that the
traits cause high blood pressure.
(E) focuses on nervousness and anxiety only,
ignoring other personality traits that people
with high blood pressure might have
This is a Flaw in the Reasoning question and although we have not yet
discussed this question type, based on your knowledge of causal reasoning we
can proceed without a detailed understanding of the question form. You should
have identified the following argument structure in the question above:
Premise: People with high blood pressure are generally more nervous
and anxious than people who do not have high blood
pressure.
Premise: This particular combination of personality traits is called the
hypertensive personality.
Conclusion: The hypertensive personality is likely to cause a person to
develop high blood pressure.
The premises indicate that certain individuals have both high blood pressure and
the hypertensive personality. From this information we cannot draw any
conclusions, but the author makes the classic LSAT error of concluding that one
of the conditions causes the other. Your job is to find the answer that describes
this error of reasoning.
From the “Situations That Can Lead to Errors of Causality” discussion, the
scenario in this stimulus falls under item 2—“Two (or more) events occur at the
same time.” As described in that section, “While one event could have caused
the other, the two events could be the result of a third event, or the two events
could simply be correlated but one does not cause the other.” Thus, you should
search either for an answer that states that the author forgot that a third event
could have caused the two events or that the author mistook correlation for
causation. Answer choice (D) describes the latter.
Answer choice (A): This is an Opposite answer because the stimulus defines
the hypertensive personality as one with the traits of nervousness and anxiety.
Answer choice (B): The permanence of the traits is not an issue in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): Although the argument does act as described in this answer
choice, this is not an error. On the LSAT, authors have the right to make
premises that contain certain claims. Remember, the focus is not on the premises
but where the author goes with the argument once a premise is created.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. The conclusion can be
diagrammed as:
HP = hypertensive personality
HBP = high-blood pressure
C E
HP-------------------> HBP
This answer choice describes a classic error of causality: two events occurring
simultaneously are mistakenly interpreted to be in a causal relationship. There
are many other possibilities for the arrangement: the two events could be caused
by a third event (for example, genetics could cause both a hypertensive
personality and high blood pressure), the events could be reversed (the high
blood pressure could actually cause the hypertensive personality), or there may
be situations where the two do not occur together.
Answer choice (E): Although the argument does act as described in this answer
choice, this is not an error. The author is allowed to focus on nervousness and
anxiety to the exclusion of other traits. To analogize, imagine a speaker says,
“The Kansas City Royals have bad pitching and this makes them a bad team.”
The Kansas City Royals might also wear blue, but the speaker is not obligated
to mention that trait when discussing why the Royals are a bad baseball team. In
much the same way, the author of this stimulus is not obligated to mention other
traits people with high blood-pressure may have.
Please take a moment to complete the following problem:
2. High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in high school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city’s high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year’s rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.
Which one of the following, if true about the last
year, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) There was a recession that caused a high level
of unemployment in the city.
(B) The morale of students who dropped out of
high school had been low even before they
reached high school.
(C) As in the preceding year, more high school
students remained in school than dropped
out.
(D) High schools in the city established placement
offices to assist their graduates in obtaining
employment.
(E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed
at improving students’ morale in those high
school with the highest dropout rates.
The argument concludes that a program instituted two years ago to increase
morale has ultimately caused the recent decrease in high school dropouts. You
must always recognize a causal conclusion when one is presented to you!
Whenever you encounter a causal conclusion, ask yourself if the relationship
must be as stated by the author or if another explanation can be found.
In simplified form, the conclusion appears as follows:
P = program to raise high school morale
RD = reduction in dropouts
C E
P--------------> RD
Regardless of the question asked, this assessment is helpful. The question stem
asks you to weaken the argument, and according to the “How to Attack a
Causal Conclusion” section there are five main avenues of attack you should be
prepared to encounter. The correct answer, (A), falls into one of the most
frequently occurring of those categories—the alternate cause.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. The answer attacks the
conclusion by introducing an alternate cause: it was not the morale program
that led to a decrease in high dropouts, but rather the fact that no jobs were
available for individuals contemplating dropping out of high school. The job
availability factor is important because the first sentence of the stimulus
indicates that high school students who drop out go to work. Thus, if a
recession led to a high level of unemployment, this could cause high school
students to rethink dropping out and stay in school.
Answer choice (B): At best, this answer confirms that some of the high school
students had a low morale, and in that sense, the answer strengthens the
argument. At worst, the answer choice is irrelevant.
Answer choice (C): The argument indicates that the dropout rate is lower
relative to the preceding year; there is no claim that the dropout rate ever
exceeded the retention rate. Thus, to suggest that more students stayed in school
than dropped out has no effect on the argument.
Answer choice (D): This is a Shell Game answer. The stimulus refers to high
school dropouts. This answer choice refers to high school graduates.
Answer choice (E): The argument uses information about the city’s overall
dropout rate. Therefore, the target high schools of the antidropout program are
irrelevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment