LSAT Discussion Forum

I selected the correct answer choice to number 21 from the second logical reasoning section of October 2000 since I recognized it as by far the best choice. Nonetheless, this question raised some concerns for me when it comes to parallel-flaw (and parallel-reasoning) questions. I recall (maybe incorrectly?) learning in class that one of the big things in parallel-reasoning questions (and I figured parallel-flaw questions as well) is that the correct answer choice has to match the stimulus in terms of the level of possibility (possible/probable/necessary). Is this not the case? In question 21 the argument in the stimulus seems to have much more definite language than the correct answer choice (the correct answer choice refers only to "most people" and "most instances" whereas the stimulus seems to be referring to all of experimental psychology and all instances). Thanks in advance for any insight!

Best,
Steve

Good question, Steve, and a perfectly reasonable response to this collection of less than perfect answers. You're right that we want to find as much parallelism in our answers as in the stimulus, whether in a parallel reasoning question or in parallel flaw. Sometimes, though, we have to take the best of the bunch, which you did. Don't let it bother you too much - you saw through their dirty trick. There's probably a good reason that this is Q21 and not Q7 - they want you to slow down, read through them all again and again, waste some time and decide that none of the answers is right, rather than following the stem's requirement to pick the "most similar" answer choice. Good for you for not falling for that trap!

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

Thanks for the response Adam! So in the future I shouldn't worry about the level of possibility matching up with parallel reasoning questions? I thought that was something I learned in my PowerScore class...Or am I thinking of method of reasoning questions or some other type of question? I took the course in February, and while I do remember that I should look for the level of possibility to match, I'm not sure I remember the correct question type I am supposed to do that for .

Also, with respect to parallel reasoning questions, even if the level of possibility does not need to match, should I at least look for a match, or is a match a trick more often than the correct answer?

Thanks again,
Steve

You should look for the strength of language to match, whether with parallel reasoning or parallel flaw, but it doesn't always have to, as in this case. If the argument has a conclusion with certainty ("must" or "will" or "cannot", etc.), then the ideal match will contain certainty. Not always, but most of the time. So you did remember exactly right in this case - but the test-makers played a little dirty.

Thanks for clearing things up Adam!

Would anyone be so kind as to diagam out the stimulus as well as all the rest of the answer choices for this problem and compare them with eachother to see why A is right and all others are wrong?

It would help me immensely.

(Even though I read all the answer choices, the only thing I had really done was look at the conclusions of each answer choice and look for the one that talked about the idea that if there was more of a certain necc condition then the better the sufficient condition would be. And only A seemed to match that structure. But I don't think this skimming process should be a sustainable approach on this test with these types of questions so I would love to know how you guys would have appraoched the problem as well as how you would have diagramed out and comapred all the choices with eachother. Oh and my diagramming for the stimulus looked something like:
experimental psych--->need to know stat
thus, the more stat one knows---> the better one will be at experimental psych)

Thank you for your time.

lsatwinner68 wrote:Would anyone be so kind as to diagam out the stimulus as well as all the rest of the answer choices for this problem and compare them with eachother to see why A is right and all others are wrong?

It would help me immensely.

(Even though I read all the answer choices, the only thing I had really done was look at the conclusions of each answer choice and look for the one that talked about the idea that if there was more of a certain necc condition then the better the sufficient condition would be. And only A seemed to match that structure. But I don't think this skimming process should be a sustainable approach on this test with these types of questions so I would love to know how you guys would have appraoched the problem as well as how you would have diagramed out and comapred all the choices with eachother. Oh and my diagramming for the stimulus looked something like:
experimental psych--->need to know stat
thus, the more stat one knows---> the better one will be at experimental psych)

Thank you for your time.

Hello,

It might be something like

Experimental psych apply stats
Understand apply stats stat training
More stat training better at experimental psych research

A) People love/support
Not depressed/unhappy love/support
More love/support happier

B) Jobs annual wage increases
Work longer more raises
Work longer more income

C) Arteriosclerosis causes (main cause) heart attacks
Develops over extended time
Arteriosclerosis risk more likely heart attack over time

D) Many disease processes biochemical
Understand many diseases understand chemistry
No training chemistry no understand medicine

E) Disease processes biochemical
Understand chemistry understand most diseases
Master medicine (little more than) chemistry training

David

David Boyle wrote: Experimental psych apply stats
Understand apply stats stat training
More stat training better at experimental psych research

A) People love/support
Not depressed/unhappy love/support
More love/support happier

I struggled with this one in real time, because although this is exactly how I diagrammed the stimulus and (A), I didn't see how they matched up.

The logic in the stimulus looked like a bit of a mistaken reversal to me ... P: EP AS/UAS ST ... C: More ST More EP

The premises in (A) on the other hand don't quite link up as they do in the stimulus. What am I missing?

Hi Sodomojo,

There is no mistaken reversal in the stimulus, but in any case, I would like to set the diagramming aside to offer a different approach. You are looking for the flaw in the reasoning, and an argument that uses sufficient and necessary can still have other flaws besides issues with mistaken reversals, mistaken negations, or gaps in the chain of reasoning. I would describe the flaw in the stimulus as "assumes that because something is necessary for a positive outcome, more of it will result in an even better outcome."

This is not necessarily the case. For example, fat is necessary for health. It doesn't follow that more fat makes you healthier.

Diagramming can be a great tool, but remember that it is just one of many available tools!

Hello! I was wondering why E was wrong?