Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q22 Taking advanced mathematics courses should

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

Taking advanced mathematics courses should increase a student’s grade point average, for, as numerous studies have shown, students who have taken one or more advanced mathematics courses are far more likely to have high grade point averages than students who have not taken such courses.

Conclusion

Taking advanced math should raise your GPA.

Evidence

Numerous studies have shown that students who take at least one advanced math class are more likely than those who don't to have high GPA's.

Evaluation

This is a classic move from Correlation to Causality. Whenever we see a correlation formulated like, , we can expect the author to overconfidently assume/conclude that X causes Y, or that Y causes X.

We are supposed to think about alternate explanations for this correlation (such as Reverse Causality or Third Factor). It's possible that high GPA is a prerequisite to get into advanced math classes (reverse causality). It's possible that being really smart, or having a tutor, or having involved parents is the third causal factor that accounts for both high GPA and taking advanced math.

Goal

We need an argument that presents a correlation and then concludes that one thing causes the other, but seems vulnerable to objections of reverse causality or third factor.

22.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

  1. Fur color is in large

    Weak Match

    This concludes that "genes cause fur color" (hereditary = genetic). Is there a correlation in the evidence that says "cats who had these genes were more likely than those who didn't to have a certain color fur"? No, not quite. Talking about a cat's offspring certainly conveys the idea of shared genes, but this isn't the same as presenting a correlation between supposed cause (genes) and supposed effect (fur color). Also, this correlation wouldn't be vulnerable to speculation of reverse causality (we wouldn't be able to argue that fur color caused the genes).

    1% picked this

  2. Water can cause intoxication. After

    Weak Evidence Match

    The conclusion is causal, although it's less strongly worded than the original. "X should have an effect on Y" seems stronger than saying "X can have an effect of Y". The evidence is not a correlation between X and Y, though. That would have sounded like, "People who drink water are more likely than those who don't to be intoxicated". But, this definitely deserves points for being one of the funniest LSAT answer choices we'll come across.

    2% picked this

  3. Eating a diet consisting primarily

    Weak Match

    The conclusion is causal but more weakly worded than the original (X may cause Y vs. X should cause Y). And the evidence isn't quite the same type of correlation. We would want to hear something more like, "People whose diet is mainly fats and carbs are more likely than people without such a diet to have gained weight". This just says "many obese people eat such diets". Cool, but many non-obese people also each such diets. A correlation reveals a clear asymmetry because of how it's phrased. Many people who don't have high GPAs take advanced math, but the correlation is saying "yes, but you're more likely to have a high GPA if you take advanced math".

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    Buying running shoes should increase

    Why this is right

    The conclusion is causal and has the same strength: buying running shoes should cause more exercise. The evidence is a correlation saying "people who are X are more likely than those who aren't to be Y". And this argument is definitely vulnerable to reverse causality objections (maybe exercising a bunch causes them to need to buy running shoes more often) or third factor objections (maybe wealthy people have more means to buy new running shoes and more disposable time to exercise).

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

    73% picked this

  5. Reading to children at an

    Not as Good as (D)

    This is a frustratingly close match, but not as close as (D). This does have a causal conclusion of the same strength as the original. We want the evidence to say "kids who have been read to are more likely than those who don't to read on their own later". The evidence basically does say that. It's presented in inverted format, but it's the same idea: "kids who haven't been read to are less likely". That slight difference would already award the victory of "closest match" to (D), but the other salient difference is that there's no way to argue reverse causality with this one, since it already has a chronology built in. In the original, we could object, "maybe they had a high GPA before they started doing advanced math". We (D), we can object, "maybe they started exercising more first, and then they needed more running shoes". But with this one, we can't say, "maybe they started reading on their own later in life before they were read to as a child".

    19% 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