#22 - Concept Reference, Strengthen

[hfsports429]

Hi,

Regarding question 22 (which one of the following would most support the author's contentions concerning the conditions under which groupthink takes place): I'm a little bit confused as to what the author's contentions actually are. I imagine the clues are near the bottom of the passage:

"Cohesiveness of the decision-making group is an essential antecedent condition for this syndrome, but not a sufficient one, so it is important to work toward identifying the additional factors that determine whether group cohesiveness will deteriorate into groupthink or allow for effective decision making."

It sounds to me that the author is suggesting that more investigation is necessary to determine what or how group think occurs when there is cohesiveness.

How does answer choice C address this? I picked D, since I inferred that group factions is related to the kind of deep cohesion that the researchers worry about when it comes to groupthink.

Does C suggest that because no cases of groupthink are found in that one example, then more investigation indeed needs to be done (thus supporting the author's viewpoint here?)

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there hf, let me see if I can shed a little light on this for you.

The author's contentions about groupthink can be found starting around the early 20s. There, we first learn about groupthink when the author tells us

while the members of a highly cohesive group can feel much freer to deviate from the majority, their desire for genuine concurrence on every important issue often inclines them not to use this freedom. In a highly cohesive group of decision makers, the danger is not that individuals will conceal objections they harbor regarding a proposal favored by the majority, but that they will think the proposal is a good one without attempting to carry out a critical scrutiny that could reveal grounds for strong objections. Members may then decide that any misgivings they feel are not worth pursuing--that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the group consensus.

So, groupthink occurs within groups that are cohesive, which means they tend to trust each other. The later lines that you refer to are about guarding against groupthink, so that cohesive groups (which are generally good and productive) don't fall into groupthink (which leads to fiascoes). So you're right that the author wants more study, to avoid the pitfalls, but he still has some clear ideas about what groupthink is and in what environments it tends to arise.

That's where answer C comes in, and it's a causal answer. This answer demonstrates that where the alleged cause (cohesiveness) is absent, the alleged effect (groupthink) is also absent. An answer like that is a classic way to strengthen a causal claim on the LSAT. It suggests a stronger positive correlation between the supposed cause and effect, and while that doesn't prove the author is right, it certainly helps his case some.

Answer D would actually hurt our author's case, by saying that groupthink does not come up only in cohesive groups, but also in groups that have divided into intransigent (stubborn) factions. If that were true, his argument that groupthink is born out of cohesive groups that get careless and lazy (my words, not his) falls apart. Since we want to strengthen, not weaken, his argument, answer D must be rejected.

I hope that helped!

[hfsports429]

Thanks Adam. When you break it down into that causal argument, it makes complete sense. To me, the writing made it more difficult to see this causal chain and thus, I didn't realize the answer could strengthen by negating the cause (cohesive->distrustful groups) and then negating the effect (groupthink->no groupthink).

[avengingangel]

hi! could someone please explain why answer choice B is incorrect? i have some thoughts but would like to understand the full explanation.

thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi avengingangel,

More than happy to explain B, but first I'd like to hear what your thoughts are! Struggling through questions like this yourself first makes a HUGE difference in terms of learning and improving, and I want to give you that opportunity before we jump in with the answer. Let us know how you've read B, and then we can let you know if you're on the right track (and, if not, we can tailor the explanation to your thinking on this one).

[avengingangel]

well mainly, because while (it seems to me to be) true based on the passage (lines 7-20), the sentence does not address "the author's contentions concerning the conditions under which groupthink take place." this answer choice doesn't directly have to do with groupthink.

[avengingangel]

Oh! I'm also just now realizing this is a strengthen question, not a most strongly support question!

I totally crossed out C my first time around, bc I was like, whaat that did not happen in the passage ! but now i clearly see what that's the answer.

So/however, my explanation for why B is wrong is still mostly the same -- this answer choice doesn't really have an impact on the argument at hand. or if anything, it maybe weakens it a little bit (bc you need cohesiveness to have groupthink, and dissent is kind of the opposite of group think conditions)

[Robert Carroll]

avengingangel,

You are correct that the question is a Strengthen and answer choice (B) actually weakens. It gives evidence to undermine the author's claim - cohesive groups should be susceptible to groupthink, but answer choice (B) supports the claim that dissent is actually more common in cohesive groups.

Robert Carroll

[AlyssaY]

Hi,

For question #22, I get why C is the correct answer but my reasoning is different than the way Adam has described it. I want to make sure I understood the passage correctly and have diagrammed the relationships in the right way.

That's where answer C comes in, and it's a causal answer. This answer demonstrates that where the alleged cause (cohesiveness) is absent, the alleged effect (groupthink) is also absent. An answer like that is a classic way to strengthen a causal claim on the LSAT. It suggests a stronger positive correlation between the supposed cause and effect, and while that doesn't prove the author is right, it certainly helps his case some.

My understanding was that the author did NOT make a causal claim about cohesiveness and groupthink. In the last paragraph, he introduces a conditional statement that says Group Cohesion is not sufficient to say that Groupthink syndrome will always occur, but in all cases of Groupthink, group cohesion has been present (Line 52-54: "Cohesiveness of the decision-making group is an essential antecedent condition for this syndrome but not a sufficient one"). (Groupthink --> Cohesion) Therefore, if you do not have cohesion, you are not at risk of falling into Groupthink, according to the author. He ends the passage saying that it is important to identify the additional factors that CAUSE group cohesiveness to deteriorate into Groupthink versus effective decision-making, not that group cohesiveness is the cause for that deterioration. (Cause: Unknown --> Effect: Cohesiveness deteriorates into groupthink).

Answer C reinforces the author's perspective by showing that in cases where a group's members generally distrust each other, or have low or no cohesion, there were no cases of Groupthink. This strengthens the author's views on the conditions under which Groupthink occur.

In this specific case, whether you view it as causal or conditional, it leads to the same strengthening technique (necessary/cause does not occur; sufficient/effect does not occur) but not sure if that will always be the case. Was I wrong to view it this way?

Thanks!!

[James Finch]

Hi Alyssa,

You're absolutely correct, the author's conditional statement is the one that sets up how they view the groupthink/cohesiveness relationship. Without that explanation, it would be fair to view that relationship more in terms of causality.
The second and much of the third paragraphs seem to be making a causal argument, and strengthen questions are strongly correlated to causal relationships; in this case either one allows one to get to the correct answer. But ultimately, the more logically sound course is to strengthen the conditional relationship, which only allows us one way: the contrapositive.

Groupthink Group Cohesion

Group Cohesion Groupthink

(C) gives us that contrapositive, in that among groups that distrust one another (aka cohesive) there are zero instances of groupthink. One could also see this as an example of no cause leading to no effect as well, and choose this answer correctly.

Either way, good job in thinking through the question and the logic behind it!