#23 - Columnist: Neuroscientists have found that states of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the columnist makes a mistake that is common in cause-effect questions on the LSAT: that of confusing a correlation with a causal relationship.

In other words, while creative states may commonly accompany an increase in theta waves, we cannot justifiably conclude that the theta waves cause the creative states. But that is what this columnist does, by asserting that music, which causes increased theta waves, will cause a state of profound creativity.

Answer choice (A): While the author does mention that the increase in theta waves takes place, in part, in the hippocampus, there is no causal link drawn to the hippocampus, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The columnist does not make the argument that music is necessary to create a state of profound creativity, but rather asserts that music is sufficient to do so.

Answer choice (C): Because there is no need to rule out such a possibility, this cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The author incorrectly presumes that theta waves and creativity always go hand-in-hand.

Answer choice (E): The columnist makes no reference to those who are not in a state of profound creativity, so this answer choice is incorrect.

[rameday]

Hello,

So this I had a conditional reasoning. M BW PC. I had the flaw as a MR PC M

So I had B as the correct answer. Not sure why B is wrong and D is right

A

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi rameday,

I notice that you frequently confuse conditional with causal reasoning, and vice versa. In this instance, the reasoning is causal, not conditional. Conditional reasoning is about absolutes, and any conditional relationship can be reduced to the absolute if... then statement. By contrast, causal reasoning is about cause and effect: such a relationship is not absolute, and always involves a temporal dimension. When the author remarks that "one can attain ... creativity by listening to ... music," this suggests a causal - not conditional - relationship between creativity and music. Compare the following two statements:

• Causal: One can attain a state of profound creativity by listening to music.
  
  Conditional: One cannot attain a state of profound creativity without listening to music.

Now that this is settled, let's look at the argument. The author observes a correlation between theta brain waves and creativity. From this, she concludes that listening to music (which increases theta waves) can also increase creativity:

Premise: Increased theta brain waves and creativity are correlated
Premise: Music (cause) Increase theta brain waves (effect)
Conclusion: Music (cause) creativity (effect)

It should be obvious that the conclusion commits a classic error of causal reasoning, where a correlation is presumed to prove a causal relationship. Such a relationship is implied, but not proven. Answer choice (D) captures this flaw by suggesting that one need not always lead to the other. Answer choice (B), by contrast, describes an error in conditional reasoning. The author never asserted that music is necessary for us to attain a state of profound creativity. See my example above.

Hope this helps! Let us know.

[Sherry001]

Hello;
Could I get a little clarification with this question ?
I see that this is a flaw question, but I was hesitant with choosing the correct answer. I notice the author has concluded causation . Usually I spot these easily as the authors often conclude causation from correlation . But I didn't spot a correlation . I spotted causation in the stimulus as well !!!


P1: creativity is accompanied by the theta ( so when we get creativity we get theta .. Isn't that an effect ?)

P2: music also gives us theta

C:music can give us creativity . ( not necessarily but possible) .


Oh coming back to edit ! I may have figured this out .. But please confirm my thinking.
Creativity - theta
Music - theta
C: music -Theta- creativity

Is this flawed because two different causes have the same effect doesn't mean that the two causes are causal? Or is the author reversing cause and effect ?lol:

[David Boyle]

Hello;
Could I get a little clarification with this question ?
I see that this is a flaw question, but I was hesitant with choosing the correct answer. I notice the author has concluded causation . Usually I spot these easily as the authors often conclude causation from correlation . But I didn't spot a correlation . I spotted causation in the stimulus as well !!!


P1: creativity is accompanied by the theta ( so when we get creativity we get theta .. Isn't that an effect ?)

P2: music also gives us theta

C:music can give us creativity . ( not necessarily but possible) .


Oh coming back to edit ! I may have figured this out .. But please confirm my thinking.
Creativity - theta
Music - theta
C: music -Theta- creativity

Is this flawed because two different causes have the same effect doesn't mean that the two causes are causal? Or is the author reversing cause and effect ?lol:

Hello Sherry001,

Creativity is accompanied by ("correlated with", at least) theta. That doesn't mean that theta causes creativity; it could be the other way around, or maybe both theta and creativity are caused by (or correlated with) something else. In any case, more theta doesn't always mean more creativity, thus, answer D is correct.
(By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "the author concluded causation" above.)

Hope this helps,
David

[JocelynL]

Hello, can you please elaborate on the explanation for answer choice (B)? I was thrown off by the explanation stating that music is sufficient (implying conditional reasoning) but I thought the statements that included music [premise 2, music (cause) increase theta waves (effect), and the conclusion music (cause) creativity (effect) ] were causal not conditional.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Jocelyn!

You're absolutely right that causal and conditional reasoning are different types of reasoning and that this stimulus relies on causal reasoning. But one of the common ways that authors make flaws in their causal reasoning is by somewhat confusing it with conditional reasoning. LSAT authors often conclude that A always causes B, or that every time you have the cause A, you will have the effect B. In that sense, the author is concluding that the cause is sufficient for the effect. It's flawed because even if A does cause B, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will always cause B.

This author is essentially concluding that listening to a tape of recorded music is sufficient to cause a state of profound creativity. That's the flaw that answer choice (D) describes: "ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity."

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[lsatstudying11]

Hi!

D makes me think that causal relationships on the LSAT must always be 100% airtight. For example, if we claim that smoking causes cancer, it must be the case that smoking always causes cancer, without exception. Is this what causality means for the purposes of the LSAT, or am I misunderstanding the correct answer? Thanks

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Exactly lsatstudying. Causal relationships are always flawed because of that. If the LSAT says that reading LSAT forums causes a score increase, they mean that every time you have someone reading in the forums that person has a score increase. And every time someone has a score increase, it should be caused by reading the LSAT forum.

In reality, we know that causal relationships don't typically work like that. But because they don't, they are inherently flawed. We can weaken the causal argument by showing times where reading the LSAT forum did not cause a score increase. We can point out a flaw in causal reasoning by saying that the causal relationship ignores other possibilities.

Here, they are trying to say that the theta waves cause the creativity. But they don't establish that every time there are theta waves there is creativity.

Hope that helps!

[rightway1566]

I was stuck between choices D and E, and ended up choosing E because I thought it was showing a case of no cause, no effect to weaken a causal argument. Could someone explain where I went wrong in thinking that?