Q25 - On average, corporations that

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a common correlation/causation issue. We know that having parties in the corporation and high profits are correlated with each other. The argument’s conclusion makes the common mistake to conclude that the parties caused the higher profits. Hmmm. That doesn’t even make sense! Of course it’s the higher profits that caused the celebratory parties! Thank goodness, answer choice (A) puts things straight. If the increased profits came before the social events then the claim that the social events caused the increased profits would be absurd.

(A) is correct for the reasons above.
(B) Compares corporations that have social events either during or after business hours. But does not compare their profits relative to corporations that have no social events.
(C) Is irrelevant. Having above average profits doesn’t mean that EZ Corporation could not increase their profits by having social events. Even assuming social events cause higher profits.
(D) Is the most tempting of the incorrect answer choices. This answer choice assumes that less time to perform their assigned duties would result in the inability to increase profits. Not necessarily true!
(E) Is irrelevant. The argument’s conclusion never claims that social events will make a corporation the most profitable of its size. Saying that the EZ Corporation wasn’t the most profitable is not the same thing as the EZ Corporation did not benefit with higher profits when it had social events.

[eunjung.shin]

Well...I did the problem without realizing it has the causal flaw. Let me explain what I did and please correct me where I am wrong.

on average corps with frequent parties show higher profits than those that rarely do.

Therefore, EZ corp could boost profit by having more parties.

How it works on average might not work with EZ corp so I tried to find an answer that would differentiate EZ. So A fits the bill. Those companies that have many parties already have high profits.

For D, I thought it explains why parties wouldnt lead to higher profits for EZ. But it wouldnt be the answer because it doesnt limit to EZ company?


Thanks in advance!

[syousif3]

I got this question right on my PT but as im reviewing I cannot seem to find a reason to eliminate D. Unless, we have to assume that the less time to perform duties would not lead to boosting the profits? That way we can eliminate it.

Can someone please help?

[shodges]

This was a hard question, and I admittedly chose (D) on the first go-through.

The stimulus is presenting a causal argument, basically that since cooperation that encourage social events have higher profits, EZ corp should too. What's the gap? That gap is that somehow these events cause higher profits (this is hinted at by the "suggests")

So, since this is a weaker, (A) is really the only answer that weakens that causal relationship by showing that the relationship is actually reversed.

(D) just isn't strong enough. While I don't think that it is too much of a jump to say that workers with less time might affect profits, you have to assume too much with this answer when you've got a perfectly good (A) staring you in the face. Who cares if they have less time to do their assignments? They may not need as much time because moral is so much higher now, etc.

While I think that (D) is a bit of a close call, it just doesn't stand up to the power of (A) to weaken.

[ericha3535]

Here is my two cents.

D is wrong because of our "outside knowledge."

In our society, people generally think that oh people are left with less time, they become less productive. And if people are left with more time, they become more productive. This is an assumption required by D.

However, is it necessarily true? Not really... Some people might argue that having higher morale is way more important than having more hours.

Presuming that having frequent parties during work hours is because of increasing people's morale, D requires an additional assumption that morale is less important than hours.

A on the other hand points out the "corr/causation" fallacy that the argument has committed. Hope this helps.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Some great discussion going on here guys, and a number of good thoughts I need to give a shout out to.

First, I love shodges point that "you've got a perfectly good (A) staring you in the face." There's a significant strategic point in realizing this is a classic causation/correlation argument, and (A) is one of the most classic causation weakeners.

As for the specific reasons (D) is wrong, props go to ericha3535 for noting that it requires us to make some additional assumptions. As mattsherman points out above, for this answer we would have to assume that having less time to complete assigned duties would lead to prevent profit increases. It's easy to think of ways that might not be true!

There's also another issue here - even if this did directly make the conclusion less likely, it would not attack the logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. If (D) made the conclusion less likely, it would also arguably make the premise less likely - and the premise is gospel truth!

Remember that a weakener should not just attack the conclusion out in space, but should rather damage the connective tissue between the premise and the conclusion.

I hope this makes this question more clear!

[yuchenh]

I still have a question about answer choice C. It seems to suggest that there is effect (earn above-average profits) but no cause (almost never brings play into the workplace). In this sense, doesn't C weaken the central assumption that having frequent social events causes high profits?

[maryadkins]

(C) is not a weakener because (C) just tells you it already has high profits...but that doesn't mean it can't improve!

The conclusion says that EZ corporation could BOOST its profits. That means no matter how high they are, the argument is that the social events could make them even better. This is why (C) doesn't actually matter.

Hope this helps!

[erikwoodward10]

The correct answer is A. I chose D confidently on both my PT and BR. I identified the correlation in the first sentence, and the implied causation in the conclusion. But I'm confused as to how this should be weakened, if it was a normal C/E relationship I would just show that ~C-->E, C-->~E, etc. But I think that the best way to weaken would be to attack the assumption that correlation implies causation. So show that there is no causal relationship.

I can see how D is incorrect--it can arrive at the conclusion that correlation does not imply causation, but it requires an additional assumption that "less time to perform their assigned duties than they otherwise would have" means that employees' performance would be negatively impacted, and this would negatively impact profits. That's a lot to assume.

And in principle I can see what I is trying to do--again, show that causation does not imply correlation, by showing that the effect (more $) occurs independently of the cause (frequent social events in the workplace).

But there is a subtle shift in the expression of the cause in A. The stimulus is talking about the difference in profits between corporations that encourage frequent social events in the workplace and those that don’t. The sample size here is all corporations, but the distinction is between those that "encourage frequent social events in the workplace" and those that don't. Answer choice A is talking about average profits, which would include a sample size of corporations, regardless of the distinction given to us in the stimulus. I don't see how these have to be the same, which answer choice A requires in order to be true.

[Emmeline Ndongue]

Down to A and D, incorrectly chose D bc I missed out on the point that "less time to perform one's assigned duties doesn't necessarily lead to NOT boosting the corporation's profits. D would've required further assumption to be correct.

I still have a bit of a problem with A, since earning above-average profits isn't the same as "boosting profits", right? Your corp can be shitty and doesn't earn much and by encouraging social events during biz hrs, you help gain perhaps 20 more dollars of profit. It's still shitty (perhaps below average) but it definitely is better than before and should be considered a "boost" of profits.

I suppose the stimulus is about "higher" profits as the effect, rather than "high (or above-average)" profits as the effect.
I beg sb please correct me on this.....