Q8 - Sociologist: The claim that there

[clairenlee]

I see why all the other answer choices are not applicable, but the correct answer--B--I just don't see the presupposition in the argument. Could you help me to see it?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question!

The sociologist concludes that the claim that there's lots of violent crime is false; in other words, that there is not a lot of violent crime. How does he get there? It looks like we have an intermediate conclusion:

Violent crime is rare, therefore newspapers are likely to print stories about them, therefore the claim that violent crime is common, which is based on the frequency of newspaper stories about it, is false.

Red flag! What do you notice about the first premise compared to the conclusion?

Premise: violent crime is rare
Conclusion: violent crime is not common

They're the same! The sociologist bases his conclusion that violent crime is rare partly on the premise that, yes, violent crime is rare!

So that's why (B) is correct: the argument presupposes the truth of the conclusion it's trying to establish.

(A) is out because the argument states that many stories are about violent crime; it doesn't matter whether most are.

(C) is out of scope in its mention of bias.

(D) is incorrect because nowhere does the argument touch upon group vs. individual characteristics.

(E) is incorrect because this past-future stuff never happens in the argument.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[clairenlee]

ah...yes. Thank you for such a clear explanation!

[interestedintacos]

I think this is an amazing question to pick up on the methods of the test makers. It's true that one way they hide the circularity of the argument is by changing the language from "there isn't a large number" to "rare" (which would mean there can't be a large number). But that's obvious, and everyone knows the test makers do that.

Here's the second fairly obvious thing. The stimulus argument sounds convincing because in reality basing the claim that there are a lot of violent crimes on frequency of newspaper reports is dubious AND it's a flaw specifically used on previous LSAT questions.

But here's the truly interesting thing. HOW did the test makers construct a stimulus in a way that they can really confuse you? The previous reasons are small. The big reason is this. When you read this prompt chances are you will intuit a valid argument based on a different reading of the last sentence, one which the test makers were clearly working from when creating this question. The test makers took a reasonable step in logic and reversed it in order to confuse you. Naturally the mind tries to see it the right way, and this throws you off from quickly realizing the mistake.

The natural last sentence, which I think the test makers originally worked from and reversed in order to create the flaw in a way that isn't so obvious, goes like this: If newspapers are likely to print stories about violent crimes, then those crimes must be rare occurrences.

Granted, your experience when reading this stimulus and that sentence might have been completely different, but for me I was momentarily confused because of the cognitive dissonance. In short, it's written in a way to make you expect something in your mind, and then when you get it in reverse, it creates temporary confusion.

This analysis also shows how even in a question where the flaw is about circular reasoning, the underlying step taken to create the flaw in the first place was taking the conditional proposition you'd expect to see and reversing it.

I could be wrong about all this, but I strongly think this is how the test makers constructed this question. To hide circular reasoning they need to do more than paraphrase something; in this case they used a few tricks to lead your mind in one direction and prevent you from easily seeing the flaw.

The test makers are just like those 'psychology magician' guys you see on TV who get people to say and do certain things based on cues the person isn't conscious of. These guys are called psychometricians, and they know the tricks.

[IsaiahK838]

Hi Manhattan! I am wondering whether the "sufficient/necessary confusion flaw" implies a "circular flaw"?
I diagrammed the stimulus as followings:
crime rare occurrences -->newspapers are likely to print.
newspapers are likely to print.
-------------------------------------
Large # V.C = rare occurrences

It seems like a necessary/sufficient confusion error
A-->B
B
------------
A

Thanks in advance for any help!!