Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q14 Forty to 60 percent of students

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

Forty to 60 percent of students report, in anonymous surveys, that they plagiarized at least once as undergraduates, and evidence indicates that plagiarism also occurs in our medical and business schools.

Conclusion (thus)

Reducing academic plagiarism will lead to a reduction of professional misconduct.

Evidence

Students who plagiarize are more likely to engage in subsequent professional misconduct than are those who don't.

Evaluate

This is trying to disguise an age old problem, but it's just presenting a correlation between X and Y in the evidence and then concluding something that implies that the author thinks that X causes Y.

Our best chance of catching these Causal flaws is making sure we're sensitized to more likely / less likely type correlation language. The most common way to hear a correlation expressed is something like, . From there, it's almost a guarantee that the author will end up assuming that A causes B or B causes A.

Since plagiarizing in school is correlated with professional misconduct later, the author assumes that plagiarizing in school has some causal influence on whether or not someone will engage in professional misconduct later.

Whenever we're evaluating these moves from "X and Y are correlated" to "X causes Y", we want to consider Alternate Explanations such as Reverse Cause (maybe Y causes X) or Third Factor (maybe both parts of the correlation are connected to Z).

In this conversation, Reverse Causality is off the table. We can't say that their professional conduct later in life is what caused them to plagiarize back when they were in school.

But, we could definitely try to explain the correlation in relation to a Third Factor. Maybe people who have low moral integrity, or people who had criminal parents, or people who have Impostor Syndrome and don't think they're as qualified as their peers are more likely both to plagiarize in school and to engage in professional misconduct during their career years.

Preventing them from plagiarizing in school won't change the root cause of their professional misconduct later.

Goal

Look for an answer formally complaining that the author has inferred a Causal relationship from a mere Correlation. Or look for something saying the author assumes that , or an answer that poses an alternate explanation for the correlation, like .

14.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in the argument?

The argument relies on the
Bad Evidence Match
The first sentence involves surveys of students who are self-reporting on whether they plagiarized as undergrads. We might doubt their willingness to provide truthful testimony, since they would be confessing to wrongdoing. However, the surveys were anonymous, so that pretty much eliminates that concern. Furthermore, the argument wasn't relying on the accuracy of those reports. It relies more on the correlation found by researchers (in the 2nd sentence).
2% picked this
The argument introduces one subject
Bad Evidence Match
The conclusion is about academic plagiarism and professional misconduct, as are the two premises. So it's not true to say the premises are giving information that's relevant to a different subject.
1% picked this
The argument presumes, without providing
Not Assumed Too Strong: only
Did the author really assume that plagiarizing is the only factor contributing to the incidence of professional misconduct? No. By saying "if we reduce plagiarism, we'll reduce professional misconduct", she's just assuming that plagiarism is a factor contributing to the incidence of professional misconduct. If she had promised that "by eliminating plagiarism, we'll eliminate professional misconduct", then she would be assuming that plagiarism is the only factor contributing. If I say, "by reducing online bullying, we can reduce suicide rates", I'm not assuming that "online bullying is the only factor contributing to the incidence of suicide".
17% picked this
The argument takes for granted
Not Assumed
Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish we can ask ourselves if the author needed to assume this idea. Was this author assuming that plagiarism is more prevalent among this population than among that population? No, there's no comparison of populations. The premise states (it doesn't assume) that professional misconduct is more prevalent among populations of people who plagiarized when they were students than it is among populations of people who didn't plagiarize when they were students. That's not an assumption, it's a premise. And there's nothing wrong with stating that premise. The flaw comes from the unwarranted conclusion the author draws on the basis of that premise.
1% picked this
Correct
The argument infers the existence
Why this is right
This describes a version of the famous Causal flaw. The author's conclusion assumes a causal connection between academic plagiarizing and professional misconduct, because it says that "reducing the former will lead to a reduction of the latter". Meanwhile, the evidence was merely an association between the two, a correlation. People who plagiarize are associated with higher rates of subsequent professional misconduct. This answer says something descriptively true and it is something worth complaining about, because a correlation between two things does not prove that there is a causal connection between those things. For example: People who drive Tesla's are more likely than those who don't to stay at fancy hotels. We can't infer from that association that driving a Tesla makes someone stay at a fancy hotel, or that "if we reduced the amount of Tesla's they own, it would lead to a reduction of fancy hotels they stay at".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% 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