Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S3 · Q20 Game show host: Humans are no better

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Game show host: Humans are no better than apes at investing, that is, they do not attain a better return on their investments than apes do.

Conclusion

Humans are no better than apes at investing (they don't attain a better return on their investments than apes do).

Evidence

They gave five stock analysts and one chimp $1350 each to invest.

After one month, the chimp won, having increased its net worth by $210. The net worth of the analyst who came in second increased by only $140.

Evaluate

Given that .... in this game show, the chimp got a better return on its investment than the humans did,

How could we argue that .... Humans are better than apes at investing (humans do attain a better return on their investments)?

Within the experiment itself, it's hard to argue with the fact that the chimp attained a better return than the humans.

So if we're going to fight the conclusion, we'll need to argue that what's going on in this game show experiment is not applicable more broadly to humans and apes.

Goal

Look for four answers that would help us argue that

20.

Each of the following describes a flaw in the game show host's reasoning EXCEPT:

  1. A conclusion is drawn about

    Accurate Flaw

    The conclusion is about apes in general ("humans are no better than apes at investing"), whereas the evidence is based on an experiment involving one chimpanzee (that did better than 5 humans). It's a flawed move to make such a hasty generalization. If we see one 2nd grader reading Shakespeare, it's a dubious conclusion to say, "Apparently, all 2nd graders read Shakespeare". If we see one chimp beat five human investors, it's a hasty generalization to say "all apes are as good as humans when it comes to investing".

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    No evidence is offered that

    Why this is right

    This probably feels tempting at first, because it accords with our common sense that a chimp isn't smart enough to analyze stock information. But would this actually help us argue that "humans are better than apes at investing"? Not really. After all, no evidence is offered that humans are capable of understanding stock reports and making reasoned investment decisions. Moreover, the conclusion specifies that the claim "humans are no better than apes at investing" is meant to be understood purely in terms of who attains a better return on their investments. So, the author could freely admit, "Chimps have no idea what they're doing. They're not capable of analyzing reports and making reasoned decisions. But apparently humans have no idea what they're doing either. After all, this chimp, who had no idea what he was doing, attained a better return on his investments than did the five humans." (It's sort of like when people at work do really well in the NCAA March Madness pool, even when they know nothing about college basketball, much to the dismay of the supposed 'experts' who thoroughly thought through their bracket and still ended up worse)

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    63% picked this

  3. A broad conclusion is drawn

    Accurate Flaw

    This has a lot of resemblance to (A), which suggests that neither one could be the correct answer (or else they both would be). The conclusion is guilty of a Sampling flaw. It makes too hasty a generalization from five humans to humans and from one chimpanzee to apes. What if the humans in this game show were exceptionally bad investors (or just not-smart humans)? That would make it totally unfair to extrapolate a generalization about humans' investing skills based on just these five lunkheads.

    6% picked this

  4. Too general a conclusion is

    Accurate Flaw

    Again, this answer choice is stressing how the conclusion is way too broad/general, given the tiny amount of evidence supporting it. This was one experiment, that involved investment performance after one month, and from that, the author is going to make a conclusion about all humans, all apes, and all investing?

    9% picked this

  5. No evidence is considered about

    Accurate Flaw

    This allows us to make an objection that, "even though the chimp has the better return on investments after one month, to truly judge an investment portfolio, you need to see its long-term performance." Maybe right now the chimp has attained a better return on investment, but were we to check back in 6 months, we'd see that the humans were getting a better return on their investments.

    17% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free