Q20 - Newspapers generally report on

[mcgarrk]

Can anyone explain why E is NOT the answer and D is?

I think I see why D is the answer - The assumption in the argument is that newspapers choose their stories based on how dramatic they are and thus, in order to explain the higher frequency in appearance, the argument concludes small obs. studies must be more likely to be dramatic. Ans D demonstrates this flawed logic by providing an alternative explanation - the fact that observational studies are more frequent is only an accurate representation of the sample size, in which small obs. studies are more common.

But I'm still not sure I understand why E is not correct... Doesn't the argument assume that being dramatic is a cause of whether a study is chosen to be reported it on? And couldn't it be possible that the findings sounding dramatic are simply an effect OF being reported on (since the news tends to dramatize/sensationalize anyways)?

[eunjung.shin]

P: newspapers generally report on dramatic sci studies. Stories on small observation are more frequent.

C: small observational studies must be more likely to have dramatic findngs,


The reason E is wrong is that this argument does not contain any causal relationship between premise and conclusion. More about the sampling error as you said. If E were to be right, arg it should say something like this;

Small observational studies show up frequently on newpaper.
Sci studies with stronger sci evidence which sound dramatic are reported even more.
Therefore, study's being dramatic is responsible for the frequency of study's being reported.

Then the answer E can be the answer for the cc flaw.

Hope that helps.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your posts!

Good question; I was tempted by (E) at first, too. This is a good reminder that we have to stay really focused on what argument, exactly, we're trying to find fault with. The point here is that the argument concludes, from the basis that 1) newspapers only report on dramatic-sounding studies and 2) stories about small studies are way more common, that small studies must be more likely to be dramatic.

Now, if (E) is right, and if it's possible that the drama is an effect, not a cause, this still doesn't have anything to do with which type of study -- small or large -- is more likely to be dramatic. This doesn't provide an alternative explanation for why newspapers tend to report on the smaller stories more than the larger ones. (D), on the other hand, hints at just such an alternative: maybe small studies are just way more common.

As for the others:

(A) is way out; no one's motives are questioned.

(B) is incorrect because the premises tell us that the larger studies generate stronger evidence ... this doesn't require us to believe that the smaller studies' evidence isn't strong at all.

(C) is incorrect because no claim is being confused with any other.

Does that clear this up for you?

[mcgarrk]

Yes, it does, thanks!!

[rinagoldfield]

Here's my take on this question. I developed this during my curriculum training to be a Manhattan LSAT instructor. Here it is for you!

[aloalua]

just a quick suggestion with these PDFs replies.

Thanks a lot for the write ups

But since there's no graph or diagram in your pdfs, why don't you just copy and paste the content into your responses
and I think a few bullet points stating the key ideas would work much better than the double spaced essay form that's going on right now.

once again, thanks

[nthakka]

Imagine 3/100 small observational studies are dramatic and those 3 get reported in studies. Now imagine 2/2 large randomized trials get published. Would the argument's conclusion that a singular small observational study is more likely to have dramatic findings than large randomized trials? Definitely not. That is what (D) gets at. Maybe small observational studies are just that much more common.

Tough question.

[patrice.antoine]

(E) is also out because the stimulus never established a causal relationship. Rather, with the phrase "generally report" it established a correlation between newspapers and scientific findings that sound dramatic.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great responses.

I think I got a bit turned around by the language in (C). Could someone provide an example of what this flaw would have looked like had it been in the stimulus? I don't think I've seen this flaw type on previous practice tests and was hoping to pick something up for future reference.

Thanks!

[daniel]

Thanks for the great responses.

I think I got a bit turned around by the language in (C). Could someone provide an example of what this flaw would have looked like had it been in the stimulus? I don't think I've seen this flaw type on previous practice tests and was hoping to pick something up for future reference.

Thanks!

I was also hoping to see an example what the stimulus would have looked like, had (C) been the credited response... SO, I'll take a stab at it; I hope that if I'm wrong, someone will chime in and correct me.

So, working backwards from the answer choice, we have:

"a claim about scientific studies with dramatic results" -- Most scientific studies reported in newspapers have findings that sound dramatic because newspapers tend to report on scientific studies whose findings challenge commonly held beliefs.

"a similar claim about small observational studies" -- Most small observational studies have findings that sound dramatic because their results tend to be unreliable.

"confuses" (i.e., mixes up)... Some possible conclusions exhibiting confusion flaw:

1. Most scientific studies reported in newspapers are probably unreliable.

2. Most observational studies that sound dramatic report findings that tend to challenge commonly held beliefs.

3. Scientific studies that challenge commonly held beliefs are probably unreliable.

Is my interpretation of the answer choice (C) correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure if I was following all your thinking there, but it seemed like you might have had an overly complicated notion of the "confuses X for Y' structure to an answer choice.

Essentially, these answers have to point to a gap between the premise and conclusion that gives us a reasoning problem. They're almost always set up like, "confuses THIS IDEA from the premise with THIS IDEA from the conclusion".

If we said,
"Janice is a girl scout. You can't be a girl scout without honor. Therefore, Janice is someone to be trusted."

This argument "confuses the possession of honor with the possession of trustworthiness".

Let's look at (C):

There IS a similar claim in this argument about studies w/ dramatic findings and small observational studies: both of them are more likely to be reported on by the newspaper than is some alternative.

Does the author confuse those two claims?

Not really. He uses them as the bridge to get to his conclusion.

He thinks:
newspaper stories are more likely to be dramatic science
and
newspaper stories are more likely to be small observational studies
so,
small observational are more likely to be dramatic science.

This isn't confusing one claim for another; it's using those two claims to make the shady leap to his conclusion.

Let me know if this elicits any questions.

[daniel]

Thanks! That definitely clears up my confusion.

[disguise_sky]

Does the flaw have something to do with "number and percentage"?
The second sentence tells us that the number of stories on small studies are larger than the number of large studies. But the conclusion says that small studies are more likely to be reported on than large studies. Does "more likely" mean comparing "dramatic small studies/all small studies" with "dramatic large studies/all large studies" (which is percentage)?
Or am i overthinking?
I'd be most grateful if anyone can clarify it. Thank you!

[erikwoodward10]

Pre-phrasing based on reasoning structure takes you a long way here, and I think is a really great tool for harder questions later in LR sections. Even if you have a hard time grasping what is going on specifically in the premises, you should pick up on the numbers/percentages/proportions reasoning structure. It's a flaw question, so be cognizant of answer choices that address a flaw in the use of that particular reasoning. D is really the only answer choice that addresses it.

[seychelles1718]

Although the explanation in the PDF file says E should be eliminated as it contradicts the 1st sentence, I don't think that's true.
The argument never establishes that being dramatic is the cause of being reported. The first sentence merely establishes a conditional relationship between being reported in newspapers and being dramatic.
I think E is tempting because it addresses causal flaw and this argument is a causal reasoning. Anyone knows why we should eliminate E?

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that it's tough to call the first sentence causal, but I think you can call it still having a built in chronology.

I wouldn't call it conditional, because there's no certainty involved with the word 'generally'.

The first sentence, as written, is just a strong correlation. However, when you think about the meaning of what's correlated, "newspapers reporting on a study" and "the study having a dramatic sounding finding", common sense tells you that the study's finding came first and that a newspaper's decision to report on it comes second.

Does it make any sense to say
FIRST, the study got reported on
and
THEN, the study had a dramatic-sounding finding?

How could "a report on something" could come earlier than "the something itself". Newspapers can't report on the future.

The first sentence gives the common sense impression of "newspapers are surveying scientific studies [that have already taken place and published/announced their findings] and choosing to report, for the most part, only on studies whose findings sounded dramatic."

To think otherwise means to think that
1st - the newspaper reports on the study (which currently has no finding)
Later - the study ends up having a dramatic sounding finding

Anyhoo, even if you get rid of the fact that (E) poses an objection that offends common sense, you can get rid of (E) based on the fact that it's making a causal objection, and the author's argument isn't one bit causal.

All three claims are about numbers / frequency. We can't object to an author's causal thinking if he never said anything causal.

[StephenC446]

Here's my take on this question. I developed this during my curriculum training to be a Manhattan LSAT instructor. Here it is for you!

Hello,

Thanks so much for writing an explanation of this problem. I just had a quick question regarding something that was stated in the PDF. It says, "Since we must accept premises as true on the LSAT, this answer choice must be wrong."

This doesn't apply to weakening questions, correct? I know the majority of the time, weaken questions require you to attack the conclusion of the argument, but are there times in which you would have to attack a premise of an argument?

Thanks a lot!