Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S1 · Q23 Statistical analysis is a common

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

Statistical analysis is a common tool for explanation in the physical sciences.

Conclusion

Human mental events cannot be explained by the physical sciences.

Evidence

Human mental events never precisely recur, so they cannot be explained by statistical analysis, and statistical analysis is a common tool for being explained by the physical sciences.

Evaluate

Our objection to the conclusion would be something like,

If we were nudging this towards a Famous Flaw, since that's a common tendency on Parallel Flaw, this has somewhat the feel of Part vs. Whole.

Statistical analysis is Part of physical science. Statistical analysis can't explain human mental events. So, physical science can't explain human mental events.

However it's more like .

Goal

Look for a conclusion that sounds definitively pessimistic "X cannot be done by Y", based on the fact that some common part of Y is unable to do X.

23.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the argument above?

  1. Computer modeling is used to

    Bad Premise Match Wrong Validity

    Since our conclusion is saying wind's affect on bikes can't be explained by computer modeling We would want two premises like this: 3D-rotation is a common tool of computer modeling, but 3D-rotation can't explain wind's affect on bikes. This is actually a valid argument, because it establishes that computer modeling can't explain wind resistance.

    24% picked this

  2. The only way to explain

    Bad Premise Match

    I would never make it past "The only way to explain" on this answer choice. There's nothing restrictive like that in the original argument. In fact, the whole flaw of the original argument is the looseness, the fact that "statistical analysis" isn't "the only way to explain", it's just "one common tool for explanation". If we kept reading there are other problems as well, but those first five words are already disqualifying.

    9% picked this

  3. The best way to explain

    Bad Premise Match (Bad Conclusion Match)

    I wouldn't make it past the first five words of this one either. We're looking for "a common way to explain", not "the only way" in (B) or "the best way" here in (C). The conclusion is also not tempting us to even read this answer choice, since it doesn't have the form of "X can't be done by Y". It's instead saying "X has nothing to do with Y".

    3% picked this

  4. To determine which explanation of

    Bad Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match

    The premises don't include ideas that would disqualify a certain tool for being used to accomplish a certain goal. There's no tool / method in the premises. And the conclusion isn't of the form "X can't be done by Y". It's of the form "all of the Y's are likely to be wrong."

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    A good way to explain

    Why this is right

    This conclusion is saying that Ancient historical events can't be explained by history. The evidence should sound like, "One common tool in history is Y, but Y can't explain ancient historical events". Indeed, - a good way (a common tool) to explain in history is "coherent narrative" - but "coherent narrative" can't explain ancient historical events We would have the same objection we had to the original argument: Just because we can't use "coherent narrative" as a way to provide a historical explanation of ancient events, doesn't historical explanation have any other good ways to explain historical events?

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

    60% 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