Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S2 · Q13 A survey of clerical workers’

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

A survey of clerical workers’ attitudes toward their work identified a group of secretaries with very positive attitudes.

Conclusion (clearly)

These secretaries' positive attitudes toward their work produced excellent job performance.

Evidence

In a survey of clerical workers' attitudes toward their work, the group of secretaries who had very positive attitudes had been rated by their supervisors as excellent workers, whereas the secretaries with less positive attitudes had been rated much lower by their supervisors.

Evaluate

The evidence here is a Correlation. It's very important to know common phrasings of correlations: People who are X are more likely to be Y The people with the most X are the most Y the more X, the more Y People who are X tend to be Y

Any time we see a correlation in the evidence, the author is very likely to assume a causal connection between the two.

If an author finds out that "X is correlated with Y", then he'll usually conclude, "Therefore, X must cause Y". We're not allowed to be that certain about what is just one possible explanation for the correlation. We're supposed to push back against these authors by saying,

There are two famous ones we need to have memorized: - Reverse Causality (maybe Y causes X) - Third Factor (maybe X and Y are both a function of Z)

In this case we have a correlation between Positive attitude | High rating toward work | from supervisor

The author's conclusion attempts to explain this curious fact by saying that Left causes Right, the positive attitude makes them work better, which is why they got a high rating.

Reverse Causality would be saying,

Third Factor would be saying,

Goal

Look for an answer that calls out the illegal move from correlation to causation, or that suggests an alternate explanation for the correlation, or that somehow diminishes the plausibility of the storyline the author is telling that .

13.

Which one of the following identifies a reasoning error in the argument?

  1. It attempts to prove a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Answers saying the author does X by doing Y are claiming that X matches the Conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Was the conclusion a generalization about job performance? No, it's not speaking in general terms. It's specifically saying "these secretaries' positive attitudes produced their excellent job performance".

    4% picked this

  2. It restates the claim that

    Not Circular Reasoning

    This answer describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, in which the evidence restates or assumes the truth of the conclusion. There is no restatement of the conclusion. The only claim that says "secretaries' attitudes produced good job performance" is the final claim, the conclusion. (Circular Reasoning answers are wrong at least 95% of the time we see them)

    5% picked this

  3. It does not consider the

    Irrelevant Objection

    When an answer begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves, "Would this idea Weaken?" Does it hurt the author's argument to say, "these secretaries with positive attitudes toward their work might have positive attitudes towards other stuff too"? No, not at all. The author doesn't care if they are positive people overall or just positive about their work. He's only saying that their positivity towards their work has the causal effect of making them work better.

    2% picked this

  4. It uses the term “positive

    Not Equivocation

    This answer describes the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same term or idea two different times, but in two very different ways (while acting like it's the same thing). There's no shifting meaning here to positive attitudes. Every time it's used it means the same thing. (Equivocation answers are wrong 95% of the time we see them)

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    It identifies the secretaries’ positive

    Why this is right

    This is one way of describing the famous Causal Flaw, in which an author is overly confident in picking one possible way to explain a curious piece of data. This answer is saying, "from a correlation between X and Y, the author arbitrarily decides that X causes Y, when it might be that Y causes X". In other words, this calls out the possible alternate explanation of Reverse Causality. Maybe the secretaries who get really flattering performance reviews from their supervisors are thereby caused to have more positive attitudes towards their work. Typing word processing documents might seem like boring work, but if you're singled out as being excellent at it, then you might start to derive from self-esteem from your typing skills and have a positive attitude about it.

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

    89% 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