Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S2 · Q9 A university study reported that

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

A university study reported that between 1975 and 1983 the length of the average workweek in a certain country increased significantly.

Conclusion (Thus)

There is no need to look for a further explanation (beyond using different methods) to explain why the university study and the governmental study had two different estimations of the how the average workweek has changed.

Evidence

The university study thinks the average workweek has gotten longer. The governmental study think it's gotten shorter. The two studies used different methods of investigation.

Evaluate

How could we accept the evidence but argue that there is still some need to look further for an explanation of the difference?

There's a curious fact: how come the college study says up and the govt. study says down?

There's a potential explanation: the college study and the govt study used different methods.

The assumption is that different methods could lead to different measurements. Maybe we both measured the temperature of a lake, and I measured near the top and you measured near the bottom and that's why we got different measurements.

But maybe the reason we got different measurements is that we used the same method (measure near the top) but your instrument works fine and my thermometer was busted.

The author is overly confident in assuming that the difference between the college study's results and the govt study's results is that they employed different methods. Maybe something else was the reason.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining that the author is saying, Meanwhile, the author is failing to rule out other possible explanations and failing to convince us that different methods led to the different results

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to

distinguish between a study produced
Doesn't Fail To Distinguish
The author isn't blurring the lines between these two studies or failing to distinguish between them. She is clear that they are distinct, given that she's arguing they had different methods and thus different results.
10% picked this
distinguish between a method of
Out Of Scope: Purpose
The author talks about different methods of investigation, but we never talk about the purpose of either investigation (we'd implicitly assume that the average length of a workweek has changed). The distinction between method and purpose doesn't have anything to do with our objection. This author thinks that two studies with the same purpose (has the length of the average workweek changed?) used different methods and measured different results. And we're saying, "Yo, that could be the reason the results are different, but you're being way too hasty to say there's no need to look further."
12% picked this
recognize that only one of
Unclear Objection
When we're doing Flaw and see answers start with Fails to Consider / Overlooks the Possibility, we want to ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would be an objection. Could we say, "Hey, author --- the reason the results were different isn't because they used different methods of investigation; it's because only one of them was properly conducted"? Hmm, it's not great. First of all, it's not clear that this would actually be an Alternate Explanation. If one study used scientifically suspect methods and the other study used good methods, then the author's explanation (the different methods caused the different results) and this answer choice's explanation (the fact that only one of them was properly conducted caused the different results) could both be in agreement. Also, when we object that the author has failed to consider an Alternate Explanation, we're only allowed to object that this alternate explanation may be the cause. We can't say the alternate explanation is the cause. for example, this answer is always wrong (A) mistakes cause for effect this answer could be correct (A) author fails to consider the purported cause may be the effect
6% picked this
Correct
recognize that two different methods
Why this is right
Does it hurt the author to say, 'Yo -- different methods can achieve identical results"? Yes! The author is arguing, "These two studies have different results. Why? Well, it turns out they have different methods. Thus, there's no need to look for any other explanation." The author is acting there like different methods guarantees different results And so this answer is punching back at that assumption and saying, "No they don't".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
69% picked this
recognize that varying economic conditions
Irrelevant Objection
This doesn't pose an Alternate Explanation for why the two studies have opposite results., nor does it hurt the plausibility that "different methods of investigation caused the results to be different". So it has no power to weaken this argument.
2% 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