Q14 - Psychologist: We asked 100 entrepreneurs

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Survey:
Entrepreneurs more confident than business managers.

Therefore, overconfident people are more likely to start businesses.

Answer Anticipation:
There's no particular reason to question the survey/sample so, unless the answer specifically brings one up, we shouldn't anticipate a sampling answer. This is because the sample size is large and the author didn't "cherry pick" the people selected.

Instead, we should focus on the "sliding scale" comparison here. The argument is relying on overconfidence being positively correlated with entrepreneurship. Any examples of these going together supports that correlation (which is what we should look for); any examples that cut against the correlation will weaken it (and we should eliminate those).

Correct Answer:
(D)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope. While knowing that the survey questions weren't biased or leading could possibly (possibly) strengthen this argument, this answer choice just says they were varied. That in no way suggests they were good questions.

(B) Out of scope. The survey and conclusion are about overconfidence. Overconfidence doesn't care about accurate estimations; it just relies on actions that don't align with the subjective risks viewed. If something is completely safe but someone believes it's 99% likely to kill them and they still do it, they'd be overconfident, regardless of the actual risks involved.

(C) Out of scope. While a second survey showing the same correlation would help strengthen the correlation, this second survey assessed success, not willingness to start a business.

(D) Bingo. This answer choice gives us more examples of the correlation (overconfident business managers showing entrepreneurship), which strengthens said correlation.

(E) Premise booster. This answer is just assuring us that the overconfident people were actually overconfident, but we already accepted that as part of the premises.

Takeaway/Pattern: This question is interesting in that it argues for a correlation, not causation. We're used to seeing questions that jump between correlation and causation. However, it is still the case (similar to causation questions) that more examples help support a correlation.

#officialexplanation

[bbirdwell]

I think you're right on!

[johnrodriguez05]

I got this question correct and understand why D is correct. However, when attempting this problem under timed conditions, I found myself torn between D and B.

I ultimately chose D for the reasons stated above and discounted B because I felt that the "at least some" language was not strong enough. Given that this was a most support question, I chose D.

Is this the correct line of reasoning or does B have no bearing on the argument? For example, if B said "All" instead of "At least some" would it be 'more' correct.

Thanks.

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone kindly go over this problem for me? I am very confused as to why (D) is the correct answer. I immediately crossed it out and was debating between (B) and (E) and ultimately went with (B) under timed pressure, but upon reviewing now, I think (E) is a better answer. I have no clue why (D) is the correct answer and what is wrong with (B) and (E)... please please help!

[ohthatpatrick]

As the original post said, we basically have a classic correlation implies causality type argument here.

Edit: this is not technically a causal argument, but the thinking strategies for causal arguments can still apply here

In general (meaning there are exceptions on both sides),
the people who were entrepreneurs were more overconfident than the people who were business managers

The author is taking that correlation to imply:
overconfidence ---causes---> entrepreneurship

I am oversimplifying what is actually said to distill the general fact pattern of this correlation --?--> causality type argument.

Remember our normal concerns with this type of argument:
1. Is the correlation just a coincidence?
2. Is the causality flowing in reverse? (could it be true that being an entrepreneur causes you to start acting more overconfident? sounds plausible.)
3. Is there some third factor that explains the supposed effect without attributing it to the supposed cause? (maybe the entrepreneurs had just come from a "Take Charge of Your Life!!" self-help seminar, so they were feeling particularly overconfident due to the seminar)

We can strengthen causal arguments by:
- ruling out reverse causality
- ruling out an alternative cause
- providing more evidence that the supposed cause and supposed effect go hand-in-hand (other studies demonstrate the same correlation .... when the supposed cause is absent, the supposed effect is absent)
- providing more details describing how the supposed cause could actually result in the supposed effect

That last type is the most rare. The first two are the most common. Choice (D) is an example of the 3rd kind.

(D) strengthens our correlation by saying "the overconfident managers were also entrepreneurs in the past" ... remember that with our initial data, there were some overconfident business managers, and they were potentially evidence AGAINST concluding that overconfidence leads one to start one's own business (since they seem to be overconfident, yet managing someone else's business, not starting their own). This answer says, "no, no, no. The overconfident business managers DID start their own businesses in the past."

(B), as someone else indicated, is too weakly worded to count for much on a Strengthen question. Also, you have to package in a couple assumptions to make it work. You have to assume these entrepreneurs were among the overconfident bunch (because not all of the entrepreneurs were necessarily overconfident), and you have to assume that the odds they calculated were stacked against them so that you know they did what the conclusion is claiming they would do (start a business in spite of enormous odds against them).

(E) draws a correlation between confidence in one's answers and confidence in one's business acumen. This would mean that the people who were most overconfident in their answers were also the people who were most confident in their own business prowess/expertise. This sounds somewhat tempting, but we have to make an assumption that "people who are especially confident in their own business acumen are more likely to start a business in spite of the enormous odds against success". That's the only way to connect this answer to the conclusion. While that idea seems plausible, it IS an assumption. You could be confident in your own business acumen but still humbled by the enormous odds against success and therefore decide NOT to start your own business.

[irenaj]

How about A? It seems to strengthen the reasoning by saying the survey is valid (with questions various enough).

Could any one point out what I have missed?

Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

Irene, you're right in thinking that arguments that rely on surveys/samples/experiments are sometimes strengthened by answers that attest to the accuracy / integrity / trustworthiness of the underlying survey/sample/experiment.

I'm not so sure why you're convinced this answer does any of that. It only tells us that the questions covered a range of topics. That doesn't tell us that the questions were accurate or unbiased. It doesn't tell us that the people who took the questionnaire were representative of entrepreneurs or business managers more broadly. It really doesn't make the questionnaire any more or less trustworthy to know that it covered a range of topics.

Moreover, what was included in the questionnaire is ultimately irrelevant to the core logic of the argument.

It wouldn't matter if the questions asked included farming, baseball, and astrology questions.

For the sake of the argument, all the author cares about is that the entrepreneurs answered these questions more confidently than the business managers did.

The author argues that because most of these entrepreneurs were more overconfident than most of these business managers, there is a correlation at large between overconfidence and entrepreneurship.

I think what you're WANTING (A) to say is that "the entrepreneurs and business managers who answered these questions are representative of entrepreneurs and business managers in general".

That would strengthen the argument.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering concerns.

[Tasty_Snack]

I was also torn between B and D. I picked D and it turned out to be a lucky guess. After going over the question again I now see why B is wrong.

The argument says that "people who are esp overconfident are more likely to start a business in SPITE of the enormous odds against success." In spite implies that the enormous odds are not a reason for a person starting a business or not. Hence the entrepreneurs do not need to determine their odds.

[wguwguwgu]

So if the the question is asking for a necessary assumption, would B work?

My thoughts are that if none of the entrepreneurs even thought about the risk, then they were not overconfident, but simply stupid.

many thanks in advance

[austindyoung]

So if the the question is asking for a necessary assumption, would B work?

My thoughts are that if none of the entrepreneurs even thought about the risk, then they were not overconfident, but simply stupid.

many thanks in advance

I'd like to know this too- but, IMO I think it would be. Change the question stem and then negate this answer. Seems to me that it would hurt the conclusion.

I got this one wrong, and I actually chose this answer.

[ohthatpatrick]

I see where you guys are coming from. (B) is definitely phrased like a Necessary Assumption answer.

There are a couple issues with that line of thinking, I think.

1. The conclusion doesn't make it clear that it's saying that 'these dudes' are more likely to start a business than 'those dudes' after first calculating the odds are enormously against them.

It could just be saying that 'these dudes' are more likely to start a business than 'those dudes', and adding conversationally that the odds of success are overwhelmingly against a new business (as though that's common knowledge).

2. The bigger problem with (B) for me is accurately. Why does the author need to assume that at least some entrepreneurs made accurate estimations of their odds of success? If they all made inaccurate estimations, would that crush the argument?

No. First of all, the conclusion is about overconfident people in general, not just these entrepreneurs. Secondly, if these entrepreneurs made inaccurate estimations, that means they either overestimated or underestimated the risk. If they underestimated the risk, that weakens the argument (the author wants to portray them as risk-takers, but if they underestimated the risk, then they didn't think they were taking much of a risk). If they overestimated the risk, that strengthens the argument.

So by negating (B) and learning that their estimated odds were inaccurate, we might be strengthening or weakening the argument.

If (B) said, "not all of the entrepreneurs greatly underestimated the odds against their attempts being successful", then we could probably pick that for Necessary Assumption (and/or Strengthen, if we had nothing better).

Hope this helps.

[ericha3535]

I think people are confused because they equate
"data" vs "relationship."

Data (or survey) is the direct support to establish the "relationship"
which is overconfidence -> taking more risk in business.

Now, what is our job? Our job is to strengthen this relationship.
Why? Because it's the conclusion that the psychologist tries to establish.

A) Irrelevant. Who cares what survey was about? It tries to confuse you that the survey was in fact a legit one. But we are more concerned about this "relationship."

B) This is like the another version of A. It tries to say that the survey was a legit one: some people accurately said stuff on the survey. First of all, it's too weak! knowing like 10 people out of 100 people (at least some) correctly saying stuff isn't going to help. Second, it's about survey. What bout the relationship? So the data is correct. Does it say anything about it?

C) First of all, degree of confidence is correlated with success. Hey watch out guys: how correlated? Perhaps this survey is saying that the higher confidence less likely to engage in practice business. It never said they are directly proportional, where one goes up and then anther goes up.

E) I chose this... but stupid. This is like B and A. Exactly same thing as oh the survey was correctly done. Again, how does this say anything about relationship?

D) Ah ha... this affirms the causal relationship that Psychologist talks about. Original conclusion says overconfidence leads one to practice in risky business. D affirms that those who belonged to this confidence groups actually attempted to start business. The idea of "attempt" isn't perfect stuff but at least, it does affirm the relationship to a certain extent.

Hope this helps

[amil91]

So if the the question is asking for a necessary assumption, would B work?

My thoughts are that if none of the entrepreneurs even thought about the risk, then they were not overconfident, but simply stupid.

many thanks in advance

You can still be overconfident and more likely to start a business than another individual and not have any clue to the extent or even the existence of odds against you. If anything an overly confident individual wouldn't care if all odds were against them, they are confident that they could overcome regardless.

[gkp1992]

I don't think the conclusion here implies a causality, indeed what has been done is a generalization based on a survey of a group of people.

And the correct answer eliminates a potential weakener (or shows that that generalization works well among business managers themselves too.)

[Jasonzhang]

I don't think the conclusion here implies a causality, indeed what has been done is a generalization based on a survey of a group of people.

And the correct answer eliminates a potential weakener (or shows that that generalization works well among business managers themselves too.)

Exactly, I agree with you.

It seems that the fact that the group with higher attribute A more likely be/do B than the group with lower A does not mean a there's a causation between A and B.

[Mab6q]

I have a general question about questions such as this one that ask us to find an answer choice that strengthens the conclusion. Does that mean we should focus on strengthening the conclusion or the reasoning in the argument between the premise and the conclusion, as I understand the two are different. One of the LSAT books that I have suggests that it's solely the latter, and I wanted to see what you MLSAT folks thought about it.

For B, I think it only strengthens the conclusion by telling us that they actually determined the odds of success, but it dosent seem to strengthen the overall reasoning in the argument so I eliminated it.

Could anyone help with that?

[ohthatpatrick]

Great questions / follow-ups.

To answer the immediate question, I think that LSAT is fairly consistent about using "reasoning/argument" vs. "claim/conclusion" in the question stem of a Weaken or Strengthen.

The vast majority of these questions say "reasoning/argument", in which case the entire argument core is being evaluated.

For the ones that say "claim / conclusion", I would still be thinking through the core (because I like reliable habits, processes, and tendencies), but technically the correct answer could simply move the needle on the believability of conclusion, without having anything to do with HOW the author got there.

In this example, (D) is specifically about the evidence, about the study. Nonetheless, even without knowing the context of the premise, (D) would still lend credence to the conclusion, since it reinforces a connection between overconfidence and attempting to start a business.

I don't actually notice this "reasoning / argument" vs. "claim / conclusion" distinction when I'm taking the test (only when answering Forum questions).

It doesn't make any difference to my process or evaluation of the answers.

=====

Another good point that was raised is that this argument is not truly causal in any explicit sense.

The conclusion only makes a statistical claim, not a causal one.

Again, to me, this isn't a super useful or important distinction on this question (which is part of why I went along with the causal language of the original poster ... it's often better to reinforce what's familiar about problems than to carve them up into so many distinctions that it's hard for the brain to latch onto patterns and tendencies).

(D) would be a correct answer whether the question stem said psychologist's "conclusion" or "argument".

(D) would be a correct answer whether the conclusion said "overconfident ppl are more likely to start a business" or "overconfidence makes ppl more likely to start a business".

The weighted average math demonstration was very cool, although I don't think if the Business Managers had an overall confidence level of .85 and the E's had a confidence level of 1 that we could say that the E's overconfidence was "MUCH more" than the BM's.

I also don't think that if 170 out of the 200 subjects have a confidence level of 1 that we would call THEM overconfident. It's more likely that we'd call the 30 ppl who are .5 UNDERconfident. But your mathematical point was still valid, even if 90% of people have NO chance of getting through this problem using that type of thinking.

Despite the lengthy debate on this thread, here are some quick, out of scope features of the wrong answers that are grounds for elimination:

(A) the content of the questions doesn't matter. This does NOT tell us that the subjects were representative of their group title.

(B) It's a super weak statement. And ACCURATELY determining odds is not something the argument needs (they could overestimate or underestimate the odds and still overconfidently start a business).

(C) "Success" is irrelevant.

(E) Actual "business acumen" is irrelevant.

[jiangziou]

I think there might be a very simple way to look at this question.

Entrepreneurs = start a business

The reasoning of the questions is :

Entrepreneurs --> more overconfident, ===conclusion===> more overconfident --> Entrepreneurs (start a business)

This is a mistaken reverse.

"More overconfident" is a necessary condition fore entrepreneurs. But in the conclusion it is sufficient.

To support the conclusion--to make "More overconfident" as a sufficient condition, we need to prove everyone who is "More overconfident" is/or was..."Entrepreneurs (start a business)"

Those are two elements that must be in the correct answer---only (B) has them.

[M.M.]

This is one of those where I read the answer and am still like "nope, I'm pretty sure I picked the right one, which is B."

The argument clearly assumes that entrepreneurs are aware of the enormous odds against success that they face. If they weren't, then the argument would completely fall apart. I'm aware that this isn't a necess. assumption question, but still.

[ohthatpatrick]

I wouldn't say it's clearly assumed.

You can hear the last sentence as
"Overconfident people are more likely to try starting a business than people who are less confident."

The "in spite of the enormous odds against success" could be the author just editorializing, or it could be the author adverbially modifying "start a business".

Overconfident people aren't just more likely to start a business,
they're more likely to start a business in spite of crazy odds.

Granted, if the author were just editorializing, I'd expect two commas setting off "in spite of the enormous odds against success" from the rest of the sentence.

But the second interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense. The author isn't saying that some businesses have better odds than others, and overconfident people are more likely to start a "bad odds" business.

The author IS just generalizing "the odds of success when you start your own business are enormously low".

To think that the author is saying that "overconfident people are more likely to start a certain kind of business (one with lower than average odds of success)" would really come out of nowhere.

And even then at most he'd only have to think that the entrepreneurs were AWARE of some odds or that they had NOT SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERESTIMATED.

He would never need to assume they accurately estimated the odds.

Finally, just remember how seldom the correct answer to Strengthen or Weaken will involve the word "some" / "sometimes" / "not all".

Since those words just mean "at least one", they're incredibly minimal in terms of what effect they can have.