Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S1 · Q17 Psychologist: People tend to make

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

Psychologist: People tend to make certain cognitive errors when they predict how a given event would affect their future happiness.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

People should not necessarily try to rid themselves of the tendency to erroneously think about how a given event would affect future happiness.

Evidence (after all)

People often erroneously see parallel lines as converging. But people should not try to rid themselves of that habit, if a surgeon offered to restructure their eyes and brain to remove that tendency.

Evaluate

The author seems to be arguing,

We're obviously filling in some blanks there, but that's how one would charitably interpret this argument. It's sort of like when you tell someone,

In terms of our job on Method, we're just supposed to try to characterize the type of evidence or reasoning employed. Almost all Method questions pull from this list of eight options:

- present analogy - (counter)example to general claim - rule out alternatives - show bad implications of logic/plan - call out a dubious assumption - raise an overlooked consideration - suggest an alternate explanation - introduce a definition / distinction

Goal

This argument seems to make the most common move on Method questions: present an analogy.

The conclusion is about cognitive errors related to happiness. The evidence is about cognitive errors related to parallel lines. The author is implying that the two situations are analogous (the deeper principle they share being, )

17.

The psychologist's argument does which one of the following?

attempts to refute a claim
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: refute a claim Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match The author is undermining the idea that "we should try to rid ourselves of the tendency to make errors when predicting how a given event would affect our future happiness." But we can't say the author is refuting a claim, because there's no explicit claim here to refute. There's definitely not a claim that "a particular event is inevitable". What follows is also wrong, but we shouldn't be continuing to read this answer once the first half is such a mismatch.
1% picked this
attempts to undermine a theory
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: theory / assumption Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match The conclusion isn't undermining a theory. It is undermining a potential course of action (trying to rid oneself of the tendency to make cognitive errors about future happiness). And the evidence has nothing to do with calling out a dubious assumption. The evidence presents an analogy.
1% picked this
Correct
argues that an action might
Why this is right
"Argues X by doing Y" means that X should match the Conclusion and Y should match the Evidence. Was the conclusion saying "an action might not be appropriate"? Yes: people should not necessarily try to rid themselves of this tendency. Was the evidence saying that an analogous action is not appropriate? Yes: people should not try to rid their visual system of the "error" of thinking that parallel lines converge.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
89% picked this
argues that two situations are
Weak Conclusion / Evidence Match
This is tempting in the sense that it's also alluding to an argument involving an Analogy, but the details don't make sense. Was the conclusion saying, "Two situations are similar"? No. It said, "people should not necessarily try to rid themselves of this tendency (to make cognitive errors about happiness)". Was the evidence establishing that, "the same action would be reasoning in each of two situations"? Nope. The evidence just established that an action (changing your visual system so that parallel lines didn't converge) would be unreasonable in one situation. The author is assuming that two situations are similar and implying that an action is unreasonable in one case by demonstrating that a similar action is unreasonable in a separate, analogous case.
4% picked this
attempts to establish a generalization
Out of Scope: establish generalization
The author is arguing against a particular action. The conclusion says, "people should not necessarily try to rid themselves of this tendency". But the author isn't using any generalization she's established to argue against it. She's using a thought experiment; she's suggesting that since X would be an unreasonable action in one case, an action similar to X would be unreasonable in a similar case. The last sentence might be construed as a generalization that the author makes (that word has a very malleable definition), but personally I wouldn't consider that last sentence general. It's a very specific scenario where a surgeon offers to restructure your eyes and visual cortex so that parallel lines would no longer converge.
4% 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