Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S1 · Q13 Journal: In several psychological studies

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

Journal: In several psychological studies, subjects were given statements to read that caused them to form new beliefs.

Conclusion (This strongly suggests)

Humans hold onto acquired beliefs even in the absence of any credible evidence to support them.

Evidence

In a study, people read statements that caused them to form new beliefs. Later when they were told that the original statements were false, the subjects maintained those new beliefs.

Evaluate

The author's conclusion is extremely broad, speaking for all of humankind, based only on a sample of people in a study (who may not be representative). So it's possible that a Weaken answer would attack this Sampling move, where the author reasons,

But we can also attack the notion that the conclusion was even true for the people in the study. Were they examples of ?

If we want to fight that categorization, we either have to find a way to argue that the people in the study: 1. DIDN'T hold onto acquired beliefs, or 2. DID have credible evidence to support those beliefs (or both)

We can't argue that first line of objection, because the evidence explicitly says that most of them persisted in their newly acquired beliefs.

Okay, so is it possible that they did have credible evidence to support those beliefs? They probably didn't have credible evidence for those beliefs prior to the study, since we know it was reading the statements in the study that caused the people to form these new beliefs.

But in between the time they're reading these statements and forming beliefs and the time, "Later," when they're told the statements were false, could they have gotten credible evidence to support the belief?

Sure, I guess so. You could read a statement like, and then form the new belief, .

Later, we tell you that Obama statement we provided you with was false, but when you got home that day, you Googled "passenger spaceship to Mars" and found out that Elon Musk was actually planning to do this. Your newly acquired belief has some credible evidence, in addition to the statement we provided.

Thus, when we rescind the truth of those statements, it doesn't cause you to jettison that new belief you formed about "within 50 years, passenger travel to Mars". You are not an example of someone who is holding onto an acquired belief even though you have no credible evidence to support it.

Goal

Look for an answer impugning the Sampling move, by saying that what happened in this study is not a generalizable "human" trait.

Or look for an answer exploiting the wiggle room with "Later, ...". Someone might have found credible evidence to support their new belief in the intervening period. Just because the original reason for the belief turns out to be false, that doesn't mean the belief is false (that's the Unproven vs. Proven False distinction).

13.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the journal's argument?

  1. Regardless of the truth of

    Weaker Impact

    This helps weaken somewhat, because if the people who persisted in believing the new beliefs are believing mostly true things, it feels like it could help us make the counterargument that these people did have credible reason to believe them. They weren't just "stuck" believing them, because of the psychological trick of the experiment. But this answer doesn't establish that the subjects knew these beliefs were mostly correct or that the subjects had any credible evidence. An answer that establishes the subjects persisted in holding onto the new beliefs because they were aware of credible evidence for them is a stronger counter.

    18% picked this

  2. It is unrealistic to expect

    Out of Scope: unrealistic

    This answer sounds like it's trying to shield these research subjects from the author's critical glare. "Jeez, author --- give them a break, alright? Yes, they look stupid because they're still believing the things they came to believe based on your phony statements, but people can't be expected to remember the origin of their beliefs or to "update their beliefs" when the basis of a belief is undercut." No one is blaming these research subjects for their behavior. The author isn't concluding, "They should have stopped believing those newly acquired beliefs". The author is descriptively (neutrally) concluding, "They continued believing those new beliefs even though (I assume) they had no credible reason to."

    4% picked this

  3. The statements originally given to

    Strengthens, if anything

    This has the effect of making the original statements sound like fishy statements. "Even if true" suggests that there's a good chance they're not true. And even if they technically qualify as true, they're misleading. If people are stubbornly hanging onto beliefs even when they're told that the "unlikely / misleading" statements on which they based those beliefs are false, that seems to help the author. We don't have to worry whether it actually strengthens. We know it doesn't weaken, since it doesn't give us a way to argue that these subjects actually did have credible evidence to support the beliefs they were retaining.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    Most of the subjects had

    Why this is right

    This goes with our anticipated objection. By the time people were told that Obama isn't really planning to build passenger ships to Mars, they had found out that Elon Musk genuinely was. Thus, when the researchers said, "The original statements we told you were false", the subjects were like, "Oh, were those statements false? Hmm. Cute. Well, ... the beliefs I ended up with on the basis of your false statements happened to be true (I know this, because I've acquired confirmation of them since then). So, I'm sticking with my new beliefs, no thanks to you mischievous researchers."

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

    72% picked this

  5. Most of the subjects were

    No Impact

    If we had no better answers, maybe we could say that initial skepticism might prompt these research subjects to do some independent research on their own, and that that's why they now retain their newly acquired beliefs. They do have credible evidence! But naturally this answer isn't as compelling as the correct one, which spells out the idea that the subjects have their own credible evidence.

    3% 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