Q23 - Statistical analysis is common

[aquyenl]

I chose A, but I can see that E is correct. Did A go wrong because of the conclusion? Where did A go wrong?

[noah]

Let's take a look at this match the flaw question!

The argument structure is this:

Conclusion: A whole type of phenomenon Z can't be used f X (large-scale approach).

Premise:One common tool used in X is Y, but it has a limitation which means it can't be used for phenomenon Z.

Let's eliminate based on mismatching conclusions. We're looking for a whole type of phenomenon to be unexplained by X (large-scale approach).

(A) seems OK. Defer.
(B) is missing the large scale approach. It's simply concluding that a phenomenon can't be explained. Eliminate.
(C) is a mismatch - nothing about a large-scale approach being unusable. Eliminate.
(D) concludes with no explanation whatsoever can be correct, not a certain family. Eliminate.
(E) concludes that a family of explanation cannot work. Seems OK. Defer.

We're down to (A) and (E). Let's see if the premises match. We're looking to match with the idea that a tool is commonly used by a certain family of tools/explanatory systems, but unusable for a certain particular issue.

(A) is simply about computer modeling from start to finish. We never learn about a tool of computer modeling, just a requirement (something must be predictable). Eliminate.

(E) is a decent match. Learning a lot of details is a tool of constructing a coherent historical narrative. However, it's not possible to do for very ancient events, thus no historical explanation can be given for such events. Again we see this broad conclusion noting that an entire large-scale approach (historical explanation) is not possible.

[alana.canfield]

After reading the above comments this still isn't clicking for me. Mainly because the stimulus is confusing to me, which is partly because of the word 'they' in the last sentence. Is 'they' referring to human mental events or to statistical processes? I think it is referring to human mental events. So am I reading it wrong or does the argument essentially say : X is a tool used for Y (physical sciences); Z (mental events) can't use X, so Z can't be explained by Y??? I know this is a flawed argument, but this makes absolutely no sense to me, it is like I'm reading a bunch of random statements.... am I reading it correctly?

In light of now knowing the E is right, I think E seems to be saying : X is a tool used for Y (explain historical events); X can't be used for Z (ancient historical events), so Z can't be explained by Y.

Is this all correct?

[aerialstrong]

Yes alana.canfield, the argument makes no sense to you for it's flawed. It's saying Statistical analysis is so common in physical sciences, so whatever can not use statistical analysis can't be explained by physical science.

So in answer E, it says "a coherent narrative is common (a good way) in historical explaination, so whatever can not use a coherent narrative can't use historical explaination" it doesn't make any sense, coz, again, it's flawed!

[ttunden]

Fortunately, I picked up on the bigger flaw here.

I noticed they said the whole field cannot explain by reasoning that a common tool in that field cannot explain.

However, I also noticed a mistaken negation in the stimulus.
2nd sentence. If you want to explain events that can be replicated to last detail --> use SA

then next sentence. cannot replicate to last detail --> ~use SA

so I was looking for mistaken negation and the part/whole flaw(i think that's what it is,tough to verbalize it)

I picked E but it didn't match the mistaken negation I was looking for. Any reason?

was it incorrect to think there was a mistaken negation?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Nice pickup on the conditional language in the stimulus, ttunden!

This conditional language is exactly what makes this stimulus so darn complicated. However, it's actually not a mistaken reversal, though I'd bet the LSAT writers hoped to snare you with that.

The problem is in how you diagrammed the second sentence. The usage of "only" here is a bit tricky. The sentence is not saying that statistical analysis is the only way to explain events that can be replicated, but rather that it can only be used when events can be replicated.

Consider this similar sentence "A pen can only be used to write things." This tells me that a pen has one and only one permissible use: to write things. The conditional would be:

if use pen --> write things

We'd have to write the sentence quite differently to get "if write things --> use pen", as we would need to establish that pens are the only permissible way. "Only a pen can be used to write" would do the trick there!

Notice the different placements of the word "only". If the sentence in the stimulus had read "Only statistical analysis can be used to explain events that can be replicated...", then your original diagramming would have been correct. But since it says "[statistical analysis] can only be used...to explain events that can be replicated", we have to diagram it like this:

If use SA --> can replicate event

Given this, the next sentence is simply the application of the contrapositive, and is valid.

As I said, this conditional language is pretty dense, and it's meant only to distract you from the actual gap in the argument. Good for you for sticking to your guns on that flaw, and accepting (E)!