#15 - A consumer magazine surveyed people who had sought

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C).

The argument compares two groups of people, those who received treatment from a psychologist for 6 months or less and those whose treatment lasted for a longer period, and showed us that in the latter group a higher percentage of patients felt that the treatment made things a lot better. From this data, the author concludes that treatment for longer than 6 months is more effective than shorter treatment.

As we are asked to weaken the argument, we should be looking for a problem with it, and since it is based primarily on comparing percentages in two different groups we should seek to show that there is something different about those two groups that might have skewed the data in some way. We could look at it causally, for example, and seek out an alternate cause for the higher percentage in the second group, other than the treatment being more effective. Anything that attacks the value of the percentages given to us should do the job of undermining our confidence in the conclusion.

Answer choice (A): Without knowing more, particularly about the percentage in the other group that felt that it made things worse, this answer does no harm to the original claim. Perhaps 70% of the other group felt that way, which would actually strengthen the argument.

Answer choice (B): A difference in response rates certainly can mess up the data in a study, but only if it suggests that the group that responded was too small or was otherwise not representative of the whole group. This answer doesn't go far enough towards showing that one or the other group was not properly represented, and so it does very little, if anything, to weaken the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer gives us a key difference between the two groups! If the group that stayed in treatment longer did so in part because they felt it was going well, then of course that group will have a higher percentage of people saying that it helped. It might not actually be helping more - it's just that the people in that group are more likely than those in the other group to feel that way. This means that the second group was not a good representation of all people who enter into therapy, which hurts the data and weakens the argument based on that data.

Answer choice (D): While this indicates that both groups are likely not representative of all patients in each group, it does so in a way that actually strengthens the argument. If dissatisfied people are more likely to respond, and the second group had a higher percentage of satisfied patients in it, that might suggest that longer therapy actually does work better. Their percentage of dissatisfied patients was lower, after all!

Answer choice (E): It is irrelevant what psychologists do or do not suggest to their patients. What matters is what actually works, and whether the survey results accurately reflect that or not. In any event, if we were to trust the expertise of these psychologists, answer E might strengthen the claim that longer therapy is more effective. It certainly does nothing to weaken that claim.

[BoomBoom]

Hello,

I answered B on this one and was wondering why C is actually the best answer?

Thanks,

Chris

[Nikki Siclunov]

Chris,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular LR question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you cultivate the analytical ability to approach these questions on your own, which is why you need to help us help you first.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

• 1. Describe your approach to the stimulus. Did you understand the argument, if any, from a structural standpoint? What is the conclusion, and what evidence is the author using in support of that conclusion?
  
  2. Did you prephrase an answer to the question in the stem? If so, what was your prephrase?
  
  3. What exactly made the two answer choices you have listed particularly attractive? Did you use any question type-specific test (e.g. Assumption Negation Technique) to differentiate between them?

Thanks,

[BoomBoom]

Hello,

1. P/Fact: A consumer magazine surveyed people who had sought a psychologist’s help with a personal problem.

[REDACTED]

2. Prephrase: I thought the conclusion was assuming that because a higher percentage of people in 6+ months of treatment said it made it better there was a hole somewhere along the lines of why did 16% more people reply to this survey in that category than in the less that 6 months category.

3. Since my prephrase wasn't too strong, after first glance at the answers I kept B and C as contenders. I then went with B because I felt it weakened the argument more than C.

If you could explain this question and how to best attack it i would appreciate it!

Thanks,

Chris

[Nikki Siclunov]

Chris,

Before we begin, a word of caution: deconstructing the argument into premises/conclusions does not mean cutting and pasting the language of the stimulus into your post. For one thing, this violates LSAC copyright regulations. For another, it shows that you didn't "process" the information. Always simplify what you're reading and distill the essential information. Here's how I'd break this down:

Premise: 20% of those in the < 6-month group said the help was effective
Premise: 36% of those in the >6-month group said the help was effective
Conclusion: treatment lasting >6 months is more effective than treatment lasting < 6 months.

What's wrong with this line of reasoning? Just because a higher proportion of the people in the >6-month group said it's effective doesn't mean that longer treatment is necessarily more effective. What if this group is biased? We are looking for some underlying bias that could explain the difference in reported effectiveness. That's all I'd prephrase here: I'm looking for a bias they didn't control for, something skewed about the data.

Answer choice (C) matches that prephrase. If those who are doing poorly tend to quit earlier, then you'd expect that over a longer period of time a higher proportion of those who are doing well will remain in treatment. Indeed, by that line of reasoning, after 2 years of treatment, maybe only 5 people will be left in treatment, every single one of them absolutely thrilled with the help they are getting. Does that mean that treatment lasting longer is more effective? Of course not! The other people have already quit, making it impossible to tell the optimal length of time it takes for the treatment to actually work.

How likely it is that people respond to the survey makes no difference here, as both percentages (20% and 36%) are of those responding to the survey. Whether either group is more likely to respond makes no difference whatsoever.

Hope this clears things up! Questions involving numbers and percentages are discussed in Lesson 9 of the Full Length LSAT course, so make sure to check that out.

Thanks!

[BoomBoom]

oops. ok thanks this clears it up!

[avengingangel]

Thanks for the response; I was going between answer choice C and and ultimately chose B, although I see now why it is not the best answer. What led me away from choosing C though, was me thinking thinking I was outsmarting the test makers by not reading patient's perceptions of doing well or poorly as the same thing as making things a lot better or not. To me, I felt that self-perception of how they were doing in treatment was something different their perception of if things were better or not. Does that make sense? I bring this up to ask if you can offer any additional advice on discerning when different terminology in the answer choices still accurately reflect the stimulus from when they mean something different. (I had drilled in my head from LRBible to make sure that the words in the answer choices match exactly to that of the stimulus - I mean, I understand that this is a Weaken question/3rd Family & therefore new information in the answer choice is OK, but I need further clarification for these nuanced questions. Thanks!)

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Angel,

Answer choice (C) states, "Patients who feel they are doing well in treatment tend to remain in treatment, while those who are doing poorly tend to quit earlier." Someone who feels like they are doing well in treatment is someone who would claim that treatment "made things a lot better." In both instances, we're talking about people's perception of how they are doing (i.e. self-perception), regardless of the actual benefits of treatment. Both involve a subjective, rather than an objective, evaluation of benefit.

To answer your more general question, please do not try to keyword match! We'd never recommend such a simplistic approach, as it often leads to failure when attacking the higher-difficulty questions. The same concept or ideas can be conveyed in multiple different ways, and test makers often seek to distinguish those who see the conceptual overlap from those who do not.

Hope this helps a bit!

[Dave Killoran]

I had drilled in my head from LRBible to make sure that the words in the answer choices match exactly to that of the stimulus

Hi Angel,

Just to second Nikki's response, which was spot on, I wanted note that the approach mentioned above is not one that I advocate or endorse in the LRB. In Parallel questions, I specifically note that you should match the intent of the meaning, and not the exact word. Thus, you'd match the absolute power of a "must" statement with something equal to it, which could be "must, "or "always," or even "never." In other question types, your job is to recognize the general force of the language, because, as we've all seen, the difference in force in statements such as "should" vs "will" (to cite one example), can have a big effect on the meaning of the argument.

Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that was clear for any other readers. Thanks!

[avengingangel]

Thanks, Nikki & Dave, for clarifying & explaining. I apologize, I did indeed oversimplify (for the sake of I didn't feel like typing out a whole nother sentence :-P ) the/my process by expressing that I "word match." I am saying that I felt like I was being Shell Game'd in answer choice C by equating "feel they are doing well" with "made things a lot better," but, to your point Nikki, both phrases involve a subjective evaluation of benefit, a similarity in the phrases that I failed to recognize. Your 'conceptual overlap note was interesting, too - I don't think I've heard that phrasing before...

And Dave, would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction (page) of where I can find that info in the Bible about matching the 'intent' of the meaning?? I know I've read that before but I'd like to note that for my review. Could you tell me also in the book where it describes the recognition of 'force' in statements, too ??

So glad I asked this question! Thank yall again for your thorough explanations (and clarification).