LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 JD180
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Aug 09, 2018
|
#49940
Hello,

I refuse to make the leap that inaccuracy in one's self reporting of their past (C) is sufficient to prove the conclusion that such studies cannot reliably determine the cause of humans subject's present characteristics.

Consider my entire case:

The answer should itself draw the link between inaccuracy and reliability, which C does not do (no answers do). Sure, inaccuracy in patients' self reporting of their past would make a determination of present characteristics based on the past reporting unreliable. But I know this not because the answer itself forces me to conclude it mathematically, but instead I know it because in our collective realities, this is undeniably true. Putting into practice what is undeniably true would fail in many other LSAT questions of this kind, for example, where the premises and conclusions (and the connection) are demonstrably false in reality, but we have to suspend our own understanding of reality and follow the mathematical progression of the question (see below)**.

LSAT makers can do whatever they want (and evidently they do), but I would want consistency, and not be expected to use reality when it suits them, and use mathematical relationships when it suits them.

**Every other questions I've done regarding Justifying Conclusions connects a premise to a conclusion mathematically. For example,

Premise: A-->B
Conclusion: A-->C

ANSWER: B-->C


Any response is highly appreciated. I am sensitive to the perception that my message is strongly worded, but if its a worthy defence, I'm highly passionate.
 Vaidehi Joshi
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: Aug 16, 2018
|
#50071
If we diagram our stimulus, we get:
premises:
Retro Study --> uses subjects' past
Retro Study --> uses self-reporting about past
---------------
CONCL: Retro study --> X reliable
---------------
prephrase: what is the missing link? We never talked about "reliable" at all in any of the premises. this is going to help us prephrase, because we need that variable to link to a premise variable we already have. how do we know where to link it? either of the "necessary" conditions being linked to the "X reliable" variable would suffice. so our conclusion could look like either:
uses subjects' past --> X reliable
OR
uses self-reporting about past --> X reliable

Answer choice (E) gives us, when diagrammed:
uses self-reporting about past --> X reliable

And thus it is the missing link. Does this still not seem convincing to you? Maybe the trick is to know that "highly susceptible to inaccuracy" is the same, for LSAT purposes, as not being "reliable" (="X reliable").

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.