Q25

[tzyc]

Isn't the passage (3rd paragraph) talking about both individual and group?
Why would it undermine what the author suggests if it says when it does not work for group?
Isn't (B) merely attacking premise? (which we can't do in LR...)
I may misunderstand something though..
Thank you

[tommywallach]

Hey Strawberry,

First off, please try to be grammatical in the way you ask questions. It's good practice for reading/understanding things (not to mention writing the LSAT essay), and it'll help me to answer you.

For example, you wrote: "Isn't the passage talks both individual and group?" Etc.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're applying LR reasoning. This isn't LR. It's RC. There are no premises in LR. It's a whole different game.

This question literally asks you to undermine the passage, so we need to do the best we can with that:

(A) This doesn't weaken the argument. We know that there are variations, but the author argues that guidelines based on psychological research would still be better than guidelines based on what lawyers think (last sentence).

(B) CORRECT. This would imply that the psychologists only know about individuals, not groups. A jury is a group.

(C) The amount of time something has been around is no defense. It could have been stupid for nearly a century!

(D) If anything, this strengthens the argument, because it means this research can be applied well in situations like lawsuit trials.

(E) This is good to know, but we only case about the times when jurors are susceptible to inferential errors. Would the new research help make them less susceptible?

Hope that helps!

-t

[tzyc]

Corrected.
Thanks for pointing it out...
I think it's because I was told to attack those infer/St/Weaken questions similar as LR.
Anyways, thanks for the help!

[magnusgan]

Hello Tommy.

I disagreed with (B) because juries are composed of jurors, each of whom is subject to inferential errors. If the research works to reduce inferential errors committed by each individual juror, doesn't it stand to reason that a body of jurors giving a single verdict obtained by tallying the votes of individual jurors, each of whom is less predisposed to making inferential errors, would result in the jury as a sum of its parts also being less susceptible to inferential errors?

So how can the model apply reliably only to individuals but not the group? Isn't this answer choice in contradiction of the passage, and therefore irrelevant?

[tzyc]

Yeah...I wonder that too.

Isn't (B) merely attacking premise? (which we can't do in LR...)

I think I said this because I felt it just goes against what the passage says...
And after reading your reply, I think I read somewhere in this forum one of different instructors says we can solve those questions like LR, so I wonder which is true or which MLSAT suggests...

For this question...maybe because even group is made of individuals, once they make a group and make a decision as group, they would not have the same answer? (such as they may change their minds by listening to others opinions?)
What do you think?
Would appreciate further thoughts for this question!!

[tommywallach]

Hey Magnus/Strawberry,

Magnus has stated that the passage says something that it definitively doesn't.

He stated: "If the research works to reduce inferential errors committed by each individual juror..."

The passage does not say this. The research is simply a descriptor of inferential error. Nothing is said to reduce it. All we've been told is that individual people make these errors. The passage never said anything reduced it (such as being in a group); in fact, the whole point of the passage is that juries (made up of lots of people) seem to be capable of making inferential errors.

Hope that helps!

-t

[phoebster21]

Hi All,
I'm equally confused with this question.

I think I understand what Magnus (sorry can't remember the exact name right now) was saying when he said "If the research works to reduce inferential errors committed by each individual juror..."

I don't think he suggested that the passage explicitly said that, but I think it might have been in reference to lines 43-44, where it says "cognitive psychologists can describe the kinds of inferential errors a person or group is likely to make."

As such, I don't understand why denying the applicability of the decision making model to a group would weaken the author's argument when the passage says it applies to both "person or group"

Any clarification would be welcomed!

Thanks!

[hyk1310]

I have the same question as the above poster. The RC passage specifically mentions both individuals and groups.

When an answer choice directly contradicts what is mentioned in the passage, how is this seriously undermining something? Isn't it falsifying a given information?

[JacquelineP303]

I think the important distinction here is that the passage in paragraph 3 mentions that "cognitive psychologists can describe the kinds of inferential errors a person or group is likely to make." Answer choice B is not undercutting evidence or contradicting evidence set out in the passage, but rather clarifying the position in the passage by showing that cognitive psychologists may be able to describe the behavior of groups and individuals, but the model for groups may not be as reliable as that for individuals. Just because the psychologists can describe the inferential errors of a group does not mean they do it well or accurately or even at all.