#12 - Tamika: Many people have been duped by the claims of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

The argument in this stimulus uses a fairly rare variant of argument by analogy. What makes this argument a bit unusual is that Tamika proceeds by disanalogy, concluding that because two groups are different in one respect, then they must be different in another, related respect.

Tamika discusses a recent trend among medical professionals toward a susceptibility to fraudulent claims regarding medical products. While many people have been duped by the claims of those who market certain questionable medical products, Tamika argues that the susceptibility of those people is easily explained by their yearning for an easy solution to complex medical problems and lack of medical knowledge. But, there is a recent trend among medical professionals, who have medical knowledge, toward a susceptibility to fraudulent claims. Tamika concludes that the susceptibility of medical professionals to fraudulent claims cannot be explained by the same explanation (i.e., their yearning for an easy solution to complex medical problems and lack of medical knowledge).

The question stem identifies this as a Method of Reasoning question. The correct answer choice will describe Tamika’s use of disanalogy to reach her conclusion.

Answer choice (A): This choice is very tricky, because it references the use of an analogy. However, in an analogy, a similarity between things is used as the basis for the conclusion. In this argument, it was a dissimilarity that led to the conclusion. This choice is attractive, and caught many test takers who failed to read all the answer choices before moving on. This choice is a good example of why it is critical to read all the answer choices on the LSAT.

Answer choice (B): Tamika did not argue against a hypothesis. Instead, she argued that a hypothesis that may be valid to explain the behavior of one group would not be appropriate to explain the behavior of a dissimilar group.

Answer choice (C): This choice describes the reverse of Tamika’s method of reasoning, in which she reached her conclusion based on the fact of the professionals’ expertise.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Tamika’s argument is that the susceptibility of a person lacking medical knowledge to questionable medical products must be explained differently than a similar susceptibility among medical professionals.

Answer choice (E): This choice presents the opposite of what occurred in Tamika’s argument, in which she concludes that an explanation, i.e., a lack of medical knowledge, should not be accepted because of the evidence against it, i.e., some of those susceptible to the fraudulent claims are medical professionals.

[actionjackson]

Hello Powerscore, I have a question about this stimulus and the subsequent answer choices. I was between answer choices B and D and incorrectly chose answer choice B. My thought process for selecting B over D was that D includes, "since two groups are disanalogous in important respects". The groups discussed in the stimulus were really only different in one respect (their medical knowledge) whereas B discusses "arguing against a hypothesis (an explanation for a behavior, or so I thought) by showing that the hypothesis cannot account for the behavior of everyone.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there actionjackson! Looks to me like you got turned off by a minor technicality - plural vs singular - rather than for a more substantive reason. You have a good point - the author really only gave one difference between the two groups - but answer D is still better than all the other answers because it is the only one that focuses on the real Method of Reasoning here, which is disanalogy (showing that two things are not alike).

Because this question is in the "Prove" family, like Must Be True questions, we have to rely on the facts in the stimulus to answer it. No outside info is allowed in the correct answer. If we are going to pick answer B, we have to be able to identify the hypothesis and the argument against it. What is the hypothesis here? That most people are easily duped because of their yearnings and lack of knowledge. Does our author argue that the hypothesis is false? Not at all! It's his hypothesis, after all! Rather than arguing against it, he argues that it doesn't apply to everyone, so another hypothesis is needed in addition to the original one (as opposed to instead of the original one).

Since the author never argues against the hypothesis, B describes something that did not occur in the stimulus, and so it cannot be a correct answer. D describes what happened, although with a minor technical problem in saying "important respects" instead of "an important respect".

Good eye on your part, but don't reject an answer just because it is imperfect. The instructions never tell us to pick perfect answers on the LSAT, just the best answer from among the five choices presented to us.

Keep at it!

[cornflakes]

Hi Powerscore,

I arrived at D here, and like many was between A and D as my final two. I read through the rationale for why A is incorrect and it does makes sense. I believe it is incomplete, and there is a much more obvious, less subtle reason why the answer is incorrect.

Even if we were to say that Tamika argues by dis-analogy, she still does not proceed by arguing that medical professionals should not be susceptible to the fraudulent claims of those who market certain medical products. All she is saying is that we can't use lack of medical knowledge as an explanation in the same way as we did for normal people because they have plenty of medical knowledge. In short, A is going way too far in saying that Tamika has this opinion that medical professionals should not be susceptible to the fraudulent claims - this is not substantiated by anything provided in the stimulus.

This answer is wrong because it mischaracterizes what Tamika actually does in her argument - it is not wrong solely because of an error in describing the reasoning form she used (analogy versus disanalogy).

I felt that this mischaracterization was must easier to spot than the analogy versus disanalogy rationale suggested. Please let me know if this line of thinking makes sense and if others agree.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi cornflakes,

I agree with your additional reason for eliminating answer choice A--nice observation! The correct description of Tamika's argument is that she shows why an explanation that applies to one group cannot be used for another group. She doesn't assert (or argue) that medical professionals shouldn't be susceptible in a general sense, just that the current trend toward their susceptibility needs to be explained in a different way (maybe by financial motivations, or something else). Side note: it's often the case that there's more than one reason a given incorrect answer is wrong. Well done!