Shell Game answers are exceedingly dangerous because, when selected, not only
do you miss the question but you walk away thinking you got it right. This
misperception makes it difficult to accurately assess your performance after the test.
In this section we will analyze three Logical Reasoning questions drawn from
real LSATs. We will use the examples to discuss the various answer types you
learned in the previous section.
Please take a moment to complete the following problem:
3. In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers
made pie dough together using rolling pins and other
utensils. Each father-son pair used a rolling pin that
was distinctively different from those used by the
other father-son pairs, and each father repeated the
phrase “rolling pin” each time his son used it. But
when the children were asked to identify all of the
rolling pins among a group of kitchen utensils that
included several rolling pins, each child picked only
the one that he had used.
Which one of the following inferences is most
supported by the information above?
(A) The children did not grasp the function of a
rolling pin.
(B) No two children understood the name “rolling
pin” to apply to the same object.
(C) The children understood that all rolling pins
have the same general shape.
(D) Each child was able to identify correctly only
the utensils that he had used.
(E) The children were not able to distinguish the
rolling pins they used from other rolling pins.
The “rolling pin” problem above is a famous question from the 1990s that lured
many people to incorrectly select answer choice (D), a Shell Game answer.
Answer choice (D) looks perfect at first glance, but the author never indicated
that the children could identify only the utensils that they used. Rolling pins,
yes; utensils, no. The correct answer choice is (B), which many test takers
quickly pass over. Let’s examine each answer:
Answer choice (A): From the text, it seems possible that the children did
understand the function of a rolling pin; certainly, they were able to identify the
rolling pin they used.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The answer must be true
because we know that despite being asked to identify all the rolling pins, each
child selected only the rolling pin he had used. No two children picked the same
rolling pin and therefore no two children understood the name “rolling pin” to
apply to the same object.
Answer choice (C): Apparently not, otherwise logic would say the children
would pick other rolling pins aside from the one they used.
Answer choice (D): Do not be concerned if you fell into this trap, but consider
it a lesson for the future. The test makers smoothly slip “utensils” into the
answer choice, and most students make the mistake of equating utensils with
rolling pins. Yes, a rolling pin is a utensil, but there are other utensils as well,
and the stimulus does not give us information about whether the children could
identify those utensils. This is the essence of the Shell Game: you expect one
thing and the test makers slip something quite similar but essentially different
into its place.
Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer. As indicated by the final
sentence of the stimulus, the children were able to distinguish the rolling pin
they used from the other rolling pins. This circumstance is exactly opposite of
that stated in answer choice (E), which declares, “The children were not able to
distinguish...” In this case, if you miss the “not,” this answer choice is very
attractive.
Answer choice (C) shows how the Shell Game can occur in the stimulus as well
as in the answer choices. Thestimulus of this problem switches from “technical
articles” to “reports of clinical trials.” Answer choice (C) plays on that substitution.
Let’s continue looking at the way answers are constructed. Please take a
moment to complete the following problem:
4. The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has
led to a proliferation of multiauthored technical
articles. Reports of clinical trials involving patients
from several hospitals are usually coauthored by
physicians from each participating hospital.
Likewise, physics papers reporting results from
experiments using subsystems developed at various
laboratories generally have authors from each
laboratory.
do you miss the question but you walk away thinking you got it right. This
misperception makes it difficult to accurately assess your performance after the test.
In this section we will analyze three Logical Reasoning questions drawn from
real LSATs. We will use the examples to discuss the various answer types you
learned in the previous section.
Please take a moment to complete the following problem:
3. In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers
made pie dough together using rolling pins and other
utensils. Each father-son pair used a rolling pin that
was distinctively different from those used by the
other father-son pairs, and each father repeated the
phrase “rolling pin” each time his son used it. But
when the children were asked to identify all of the
rolling pins among a group of kitchen utensils that
included several rolling pins, each child picked only
the one that he had used.
Which one of the following inferences is most
supported by the information above?
(A) The children did not grasp the function of a
rolling pin.
(B) No two children understood the name “rolling
pin” to apply to the same object.
(C) The children understood that all rolling pins
have the same general shape.
(D) Each child was able to identify correctly only
the utensils that he had used.
(E) The children were not able to distinguish the
rolling pins they used from other rolling pins.
The “rolling pin” problem above is a famous question from the 1990s that lured
many people to incorrectly select answer choice (D), a Shell Game answer.
Answer choice (D) looks perfect at first glance, but the author never indicated
that the children could identify only the utensils that they used. Rolling pins,
yes; utensils, no. The correct answer choice is (B), which many test takers
quickly pass over. Let’s examine each answer:
Answer choice (A): From the text, it seems possible that the children did
understand the function of a rolling pin; certainly, they were able to identify the
rolling pin they used.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The answer must be true
because we know that despite being asked to identify all the rolling pins, each
child selected only the rolling pin he had used. No two children picked the same
rolling pin and therefore no two children understood the name “rolling pin” to
apply to the same object.
Answer choice (C): Apparently not, otherwise logic would say the children
would pick other rolling pins aside from the one they used.
Answer choice (D): Do not be concerned if you fell into this trap, but consider
it a lesson for the future. The test makers smoothly slip “utensils” into the
answer choice, and most students make the mistake of equating utensils with
rolling pins. Yes, a rolling pin is a utensil, but there are other utensils as well,
and the stimulus does not give us information about whether the children could
identify those utensils. This is the essence of the Shell Game: you expect one
thing and the test makers slip something quite similar but essentially different
into its place.
Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer. As indicated by the final
sentence of the stimulus, the children were able to distinguish the rolling pin
they used from the other rolling pins. This circumstance is exactly opposite of
that stated in answer choice (E), which declares, “The children were not able to
distinguish...” In this case, if you miss the “not,” this answer choice is very
attractive.
Answer choice (C) shows how the Shell Game can occur in the stimulus as well
as in the answer choices. Thestimulus of this problem switches from “technical
articles” to “reports of clinical trials.” Answer choice (C) plays on that substitution.
Let’s continue looking at the way answers are constructed. Please take a
moment to complete the following problem:
4. The increasing complexity of scientific inquiry has
led to a proliferation of multiauthored technical
articles. Reports of clinical trials involving patients
from several hospitals are usually coauthored by
physicians from each participating hospital.
Likewise, physics papers reporting results from
experiments using subsystems developed at various
laboratories generally have authors from each
laboratory.
