Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S2 · Q16 Researcher: Results indicate that the

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

Researcher: Results indicate that the higher their educational level, the better are students' mathematical skills.

Conclusion

The fact that doesn't prove that education improves math skills.

Evidence (since)

It is possible that students who have better math skills to start with are the students who reach higher educational levels.

Evaluate

Usually on Parallel we're deciding whether to represent the argument with algebraic variables or whether to just understand it conversationally using a familiar, abstract reasoning pattern.

This one really affords both options. This argument is in that world of Explain Curious Fact causal reasoning. There's a (strong) correlation between math skills and educational levels.

Some might conclude from that correlation that educational levels cause math skills, but the author's premise is saying,

But it's also tempting to assign some algebra here, since there are repeating concepts (math skills / educational levels).

Conc: the fact that "the more X, the more Y" doesn't prove that X causes Y.

Prem: it's possible that students who were more Y to begin with were the ones able to later reach high levels of X.

Goal

Let's look for something matching our algebraic recipe, or something matching our conversational idea that

16.

The reasoning of the researcher's argument is most similar to that of which one of the following arguments?

Results indicate that the quality
Bad Evidence Match
None of the premise stuff matches up here. In the original argument we had a strong correlation that, "the more X, the more Y". In this, we have a wishy-washy statement that "quality varies from place to place". That's already a dealbreaker. The premise should sound like, "Maybe it's reverse causality: Y came first, and X came later", whereas this premise offers an alternate explanation of "maybe the data is just bad (maybe the review process is just defective").
1% picked this
Correct
Results from competition indicate that
Why this is right
This one matches well with our conversational model (and matches pretty well with our algebraic recipe). The conclusion, like the original, is saying, "These results don't prove that X causes Y". ORIG ... don't prove that higher ed causes math skill (B) ... don't prove that being professional causes athletic skills And the evidence, like the original, is raising the possibility that one trait predated the other. ORIG maybe they had math skill first, and that allowed them to reach higher ed (B) maybe the had athletic skill first, and that allowed them to reach professional heights. The one structural sense in which this is different is that the original study result had the very strong correlation form of a Volume Dial relationship: the more X, the more Y. This does not copy that feature; it doesn't say, "The higher level of professional heights they reached, the more athletic they were". Instead it just generalizes about one group being more of something than another group: "The professionals were more athletic than the non-professionals". If we had another answer similar to (B) that also matched the Volume Dial background fact, that would make that answer superior to (B). But (B) is good enough and it's our best available match.
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% picked this
Studies indicate that students who
Bad Evidence Match
The study result here is much weaker than in the original argument. ORIG: the more X, the more Y (C): people who are X are often Y (that's not even a correlation. We can say "people who smoke everyday often don't develop lung problems", even though daily smoking and lung problems are definitely correlated) And the premise is supposed to be raising the possibility that one factor predated another. This premise is saying, "It's not that employers are impressed with how prepared for the job market the candidate is; it might be that they're just impressed with the school they went to". This argument isn't even eligible for the "what if Y came before X" type of objection, because by definition attending schools here came before getting a good job.
11% picked this
Surveys indicate that politicians with
Bad Premise Match
The first two ideas are solid, but for the argument to match, the last claim should be raising the possibility that Y came before X. "This doesn't prove that having a law degree caused them to be a better politician, since it's possible that people who already had more skills as a politician are the people who go on to enter law school". Instead, this argument objects by saying that the data might be bad / incomplete.
2% picked this
Studies suggest that some people
Bad Everything Match
There is no study result that presents a correlation. ORIG: the more X, the more Y (this applies to all data points) (E): some people who are X are not Y (that's only one data point) And the premise isn't saying that "it's possible that Y (or not Y) came earlier than X". It's just saying, "many people are both X and Y".
0% 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