Q21 - Experimental psychology requires the

[lisahollchang]

Anybody feel like tackling this one? I need some help!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The key to match the flaw questions is to have a very very good sense of the flaw in the original argument before going into the answer choices.

In this case, the argument is essentially saying that...

Since one thing (understanding of stats - let's call this "A") is required for another(experimental psych - let's call this "B"),

Having more A makes you better at B.

This is obviously flawed logic -- Just because something is a requirement doesn't mean having more of that thing will make you better. For example, it might be necessary for you to be neat in filling in bubbles on test day, but being neater filling in bubbles won't relate to getting a better score. (terrible example, but hope it makes sense.)

Now we want to find an argument with the same flaw:

(A) is pretty darn close. Let's keep it.

(B) has a different type of flaw -- notice that comparisons (longer, greater) are in both premise and conclusion -- this is different from our argument and so this answer can be eliminated quickly.

(C) is pretty darn close. Let's keep it.

(D) does not have the same structure (we can tell because it reaches a different type of conclusion). We can eliminate it quickly.

(E) also reaches a different type of conclusion, and we know it has a different type of flaw.

If we look back at (A) and (C) carefully, we want to try and notice anything that makes one less like the original argument. In this case, (C) buildings in this extra layer of being "at risk" for the condition, rather than actually having the condition. Furthermore, on closer inspection, the premise in (C) is not a great match for the original argument either.

That leaves (A), the best match, and the correct answer. Hope that helps!

[lisahollchang]

Thanks for your help! Looking back at this one, I realize the mistake I made was not properly understanding the flaw. I saw it as a mistaken reversal, but didn't notice the "better at statistics, better at research in experimental psychology" element.

[pathosj]

I understand about the shift that is in (C) with the introduction of "risk", but (A) talks about "most people", which I felt was a bigger shift than the one I saw in (C). The stimulus is very absolute with the premises while (A) didn't seem to have the same rigor.

What do you think?

[mcrittell]

Would it be permissible to nix C because it doesn't follow the same type of conditional set up?

[ohthatpatrick]

With Match the Flaw questions, particularly hard ones late in the section, it's more important that we repeat the same flaw than it is that we faithfully mimic all the original ingredients.

For (A), the "most" does seem like a change from the conditional of the original, but it's not really a change.

It says, "for most people", we get the conditional that
happiness ---requires--> love and support

Hence, it concludes "in most instances", to indicate that it is referring to those "most people".

So it's still a conditional premise, in a sense, since the scope of the conclusion restricts us to only consider the cases in which the conditional applies.

In terms of getting rid of (C), I definitely agree that there is NOTHING conditional in its premise. The "main cause" of something is not conditional language.

And the conclusion of (C) does consist of conditional language, whereas the original conclusion did not.

Let me know if there are lingering qualms.

[samuelfbaron]

Should also note that (C) fails to match the tone of the stimulus.

(C) utilizes language that plays it safe "one is more likely" whereas the stimulus expresses it's conclusion with much more certainty.

[dukeag]

Is there a list somewhere out there of all the common errors found in matching error of reasoning questions? Because I really want to know how to spot the error more quickly...I have already read the LR Bible....

Also, when down to two answers, what are some things to look for to decide which one is the most similar? Like that thing about conditional language needing to match...

Thank you!

[logicalt870]

I have a question regarding why A was the correct choice and not E.

To me, E appears to be a good match. The stimulus and E are both flawed in that they assume getting better at one aspect of a job (statistics in the stimulus and chemistry in option E) will allow you to get better at the overall job. I know the conclusions are worded differently, yet this is common in "match the flaw" style questions.
I haven't wrapped my head around why E is wrong. My guess would be that E says you "need little more than training in chemistry to be able to master medicine," while the stimulus never says that training in statistics is all you need for the research job. It only says that the more proficient one is at statistics, the better they will be at research.
I am curious if I am on the right track, and if anyone can explain why A is the best match.

Thank you in advance!