Q23 - A study of adults who suffer

[alexg89]

A, C, & E could be easily eliminated.

So it was down to B & D

B I felt was not necessary. Why does it need to rule out the possibility that all of the characteristic symptoms of the syndrome have a common cause? The passage is suggesting the common cause is the syndrome so ruling that out would not make sense.

In my opinion the flaw was that it takes a correlated symptom of the syndrome to prove that the other symptoms must follow. Is this what B is trying to say, though in convoluted language?

[ohthatpatrick]

I see what you're getting at. It really IS weird the way this argument goes from talking about a complex syndrome (with symptoms X, Y, and Z) to suddenly making it seem like X causes Y and Z.

It seems like the author grasped that all three symptoms were the result of possessing some common syndrome, and yet the argument core itself shows the author seemingly getting confused.

Beware: authors do sometimes contradict themselves in Flaw questions. When they do, the correct answer normally calls them out on it.

If we restrict our attention to the argument core, we really have this:

prem:
People who have X later have Y and then have Z (always in this order)

conc:
X is one cause of Y and Z

Naturally, (B) is a correct response to this bad logic, because it's certainly possible that X, Y, and Z are all just symptoms (all just effects).

I think you didn't want to pick this answer because, based on the earlier wording in the argument, you thought the author would be smart enough to avoid this poor logic.

Just remember, the "reasoning" they're asking us to criticize in the question stem is the move the author makes from "Since ___" to "it follows that ____".

In terms of (D), that IS an answer that's worth considering when an argument uses a study/sample/survey as evidence.

However, here we could say a couple things about why (D) is not a good answer:

1. This author doesn't really use the study as evidence. Yes, the study is the background context that gets this whole conversation going, but the PREMISE for the conclusion is that X is always first, Y is always 2nd, Z is always 3rd. We're not criticizing the author because he referred to a study. We're criticizing the logic of how he interpreted that study's findings.

An example in which (D) would legitimately be the flaw we're concerned with would not only use the study/survey/sample as the sole premise, but it would probably give you some reason to anticipate that the sample was unrepresentative.

e.g. "A survey of students on student government showed that a majority of them were satisfied with the school faculty. So apparently the faculty has done a great job to endear itself to the student body." [wait a sec, those goody-two-shoes on the student govt. aren't very representative of students as a whole]

2. Let's say for a second that the study is NOT representative of migraine sufferers. Would that actually weaken the argument?

Not really. The conclusion does not purport to explain what is TYPICAL for migraine sufferers, so the evidence does not need to be about typical migraine sufferers.

The conclusion is merely saying that excessive anxiety is ONE cause of migraine headaches. So even if this study is completely unrepresentative, it could still accurately reveal a potential cause of headaches for SOME migraine sufferers.

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

[alexg89]

Thanks for the explanations, I'm getting better at recognizing that the LSAT stimulus (for flaw questions) is getting at a central flaw and to gear answers towards answer choices reflecting that.

[blairped]

I see what you're getting at. It really IS weird the way this argument goes from talking about a complex syndrome (with symptoms X, Y, and Z) to suddenly making it seem like X causes Y and Z.

It seems like the author grasped that all three symptoms were the result of possessing some common syndrome, and yet the argument core itself shows the author seemingly getting confused.

Beware: authors do sometimes contradict themselves in Flaw questions. When they do, the correct answer normally calls them out on it.

If we restrict our attention to the argument core, we really have this:

prem:
People who have X later have Y and then have Z (always in this order)

conc:
X is one cause of Y and Z

Naturally, (B) is a correct response to this bad logic, because it's certainly possible that X, Y, and Z are all just symptoms (all just effects).

I think you didn't want to pick this answer because, based on the earlier wording in the argument, you thought the author would be smart enough to avoid this poor logic.

Just remember, the "reasoning" they're asking us to criticize in the question stem is the move the author makes from "Since ___" to "it follows that ____".

In terms of (D), that IS an answer that's worth considering when an argument uses a study/sample/survey as evidence.

However, here we could say a couple things about why (D) is not a good answer:

1. This author doesn't really use the study as evidence. Yes, the study is the background context that gets this whole conversation going, but the PREMISE for the conclusion is that X is always first, Y is always 2nd, Z is always 3rd. We're not criticizing the author because he referred to a study. We're criticizing the logic of how he interpreted that study's findings.

An example in which (D) would legitimately be the flaw we're concerned with would not only use the study/survey/sample as the sole premise, but it would probably give you some reason to anticipate that the sample was unrepresentative.

e.g. "A survey of students on student government showed that a majority of them were satisfied with the school faculty. So apparently the faculty has done a great job to endear itself to the student body." [wait a sec, those goody-two-shoes on the student govt. aren't very representative of students as a whole]

2. Let's say for a second that the study is NOT representative of migraine sufferers. Would that actually weaken the argument?

Not really. The conclusion does not purport to explain what is TYPICAL for migraine sufferers, so the evidence does not need to be about typical migraine sufferers.

The conclusion is merely saying that excessive anxiety is ONE cause of migraine headaches. So even if this study is completely unrepresentative, it could still accurately reveal a potential cause of headaches for SOME migraine sufferers.

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

Your explanations are really helpful and easy to follow! Thank you so much!