Q21 - In a study, pairs of trained dogs

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Evaluate

Stimulus Breakdown:
Why are scientists always jerks to animals?

A study was done. Two dogs were given a command. When they both obeyed, only one was given a treat. Rinse, repeat. Eventually the unrewarded dog stopped obeying.

The author concludes dogs don't like being treated unfairly.

Answer Anticipation:
That new term in the conclusion - "unfairly" - is a huge jump. There are any number of reasons the dog could have stopped obeying commands. Unfairness is certainly one of them, but it could also be that the dog just didn't see a reason to obey since it wasn't getting a treat.

Any answer that brings up a question to help me evaluate either if fairness played a role, or if something else better explains it, will survive my first pass.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. Since we know the dogs both obeyed the command in at least some instances, their inclination was overcome by the time the study started to hand out treats.

(B) Bingo. In this case, the dogs are treated fairly. If there's a decline in obedience, it's likely that the lack of a treat (instead of unfairness) was what drove the misbehavior. If there's no decline, then fairness is looking more likely.

(C) Out of scope. Since each trial is a self-contained test between two dogs, prior situations would, at most, explain obedience at the beginning. It doesn't help evaluate why obedience went down for a non-treat-receiving dog over time.

(D) Half scope. If the answer to this question were, "Yes," that might suggest the treats were the driver and not fairness. However, if the answer is, "No," then it doesn't help us at all, so this question isn't necessarily useful.

(E) Out of scope. The number of repetitions doesn't affect fairness since we don't know how quickly a dog can evaluate fairness.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When an argument picks a certain explanation for a given phenomenon, your first thought should be about potential alternative explanations.

#officialexplanation

[brandonhsi]

Hello,

Could you let me know what mental process I need have for the evaluate the argument question, since it is not discussed in the LR guide?

Thanks,
Brandon

[tcobbin]

Hello

This is my first time posting an answer. But, for evaluation questions, you should go through each answer choice , and answer it using polar opposite answers, whenever the two extremes have an effect on the the conclusion of the argument, it is the correct answer. For example: the correct answer is B because

B. yes there is a decline, no there is not a decline. If yes, then maybe it is not because they are being treated unfair, but because simply they weren't receiving treats. If no, then maybe they maybe the treats have no effect and they are just obedient dogs, and the explanation of unfairness is irrelevant. The answer to this question affects the argument because it could possible provide an alternative explanation, which would undermine the conclusion.

[samuel.harris.10]

I had trouble with this question too. All of the answer choices just seemed vaguely relevant to the dog study. I chose (C) because I was wondering if the dogs needed to 'learn' about the notion of fairness. Seems kind of silly now

On review (B) seems to possibly remove the notion of fairness, dogs comparing their results. I'm interested in further explanations/justifications if anyone has them. Thanks!

[maryadkins]

The argument here is:

the dogs that didn't get the treat stopped obeying while the ones that got the treat kept obeying

-->

dogs don't like unfairness

But maybe there was another reason they stopped obeying...like they weren't getting a treat (duh)! Maybe they don't understand abstract concepts like fairness or lack of it, which requires comparison between two things (to determine whether or not something is fair or unfair).

(B) would be helpful to know because if BOTH dogs in a pair stopped obeying without the treats, we know that fairness isn't the issue—they aren't comparing themselves to each other. But if they both keep obeying, maybe it is.

As for the others, (A), (C), (D) and (E) don't bear on fairness. It's hard to tell how they would affect the fairness question at all.

Hope this helps!

[contropositive]

I like the post about applying the extreme to the answer choice and seeing how it effects the argument. I never heard of it or used it before but I plan to when I am stuck between two answers.

However, what I am confused about in regards to that post and instructor's post is that both posts are saying if both dogs stopped obeying without treats then fairness is NOT the problem. But isn't it the opposite? if Yes, both stopped obeying without treats then that strengthens the conclusion by showing that yes fairness is in fact the issue here.
But if no, they didn't stop obeying without treatment then fairness is not the factor determining their obedience.

Am I confusing myself?

There types of questions are very rare on the LSAT. I think that's why Manhattan LR 4th edition doesn't discuss this question type but I look forward to Manhattan 5th edition discussing this (hopefully).

[ohthatpatrick]

There's sort of a stupid ambiguity in language here that I'm surprised LSAT didn't do a better job of clarifying.

In the original argument, there's 2 different senses you might get out of why the author thinks the disobedient dog feels it's being treated unfairly:

1. "Hey, unfair. THAT dog got a treat, but I didn't!"
vs.
2. "Hey, unfair. I did your stupid trick, but I didn't get a treat!"

The argument intends to deal with that #1 sense of fairness, the comparative one.

If dogs are judging fairness based on "similar treatment to my partner dog", then we would expect that when BOTH get a treat or when BOTH don't a treat, behavior would be the same for both dogs. "Hey, they're treating us equally!"

(B) is suggesting that if we just never brought treats into the equation, maybe both dogs would remain obedient and SIT every time they were asked. If both dogs keep behaving without treats (NO decline in obedience), then we know what really irked dog #2 the first time was not necessarily the lack of a treat but the fact that dog #1 DID get a treat.

So a NO answer supports the idea that a sense of unfairness is what angered dog #2 the first time around.

If both dogs stop behaving without treats (YES decline in obedience), then we know what really irked dog #2 the first time was the lack of a treat, not the asymmetric treatment of dog #1.

So a YES answer weakens the idea that unfairness is what angered dog #2 the first time around.

[LukeM22]

I'm still not sold on Why C is wrong.

Using the "Yes/No Strategy" above, I think that a yes or no answer to C would actually make a difference. If the two groups of dogs were mixed up, then it leaves open the alternate possibility that the dogs disobeyed because they were conditioned to expect a treat (because they were originally part of a different group) and didn't get one (because they changed groups). Which could incite feelings of "unfairness". A "No" would make the argument that more airtight.

[ohthatpatrick]

(C) does seem be a tempting idea in terms of figuring out exactly what's going on here.

However, a NO answer doesn't really change our thinking at all (when we read the prompt, we're tending to assume a given dog was either a gets-treat or denied-treat dog, not both).

If the answer is YES, there's very little information payout: YES means that at least one dog was switched from gets-treat to denied-treat (or vice versa) for at least one trial.

Okay .... so what? If one dog who previously was in the gets-treat group does one trial as a denied-treat dog, what effect does that have on how we judge the argument.

During that one trial, did the switched dog still obey? We don't know.
Over time, would that switched dog adapt the behavior of his new group or keep the behavior of his old group? We don't know.

(C) is appealing because the idea of testing the same dog in different groups seems relevant to controlling for variables, but the information payout of answering YES to (C) is so limited that it does nothing on its own.

Finally, even if we had a better written version of (C) that let us know that "most/all the dogs that switched from gets-treat to denied-treat over time switched from obeying to disobeying", would that really help us judge WHY they started disobeying?

It's still just as likely that they stopped disobeying because they weren't being rewarded for obeying as it is that they stopped disobeying because they perceived unfairness and resented it.