Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S1 · Q23 Researcher: Each subject

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

Researcher: Each subject in this experiment owns one car, and was asked to estimate what proportion of all automobiles registered in the nation are the same make as the subject's car.

Conclusion

Certain makes of car must be more common in some areas than others.

Evidence

If that were so, then many people would overestimate how common their type of car is. + In a study, many people overestimated how common their type of car is.

Evaluation

This is committing a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw by doing backwards logic on a conditional. If my hypothesis were true, we would see X. We see X, thus my hypothesis is true.

Here's a parallel argument: I hypothesize that people think their own lives are typical of other people's lives. If this were so, then many people would overestimate how typical their car is. Since people in this study overestimated how typical their car is, it must be that people think there own lives are typical of others'.

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out that there are other possible ways to interpret the fact that people overestimate how common their car is, or an answer calling out the backwards logic (Nec vs. Suff) move the author made.

23.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a reasoning flaw in the researcher's argument?

  1. The argument fails to estimate

    Not An Objection

    Our author seems to think that the people in this study who overestimate do not know that actual stats, they just overgeneralize from their local area as a representative sample. Our author thinks it's likely (over 50%) that these overestimators don't know the actual stats. We don't need the author to put a number to that. (e.g. "there's a 70% chance that these people don't know the actual stats and just guessed based on what they see in their local areas")

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    The argument treats a result

    Why this is right

    The author said, "If my hypothesis is right, then X would be true. X is true, so that proves my hypothesis is correct." If a hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is observed, that lends support to the hypothesis but doesn't confirm it. Maybe more than one hypothesis would make the same prediction (for example, if I hypothesized that people tend to over-extrapolate from their own experiences, I would similarly predict that people would overestimate

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

    84% picked this

  3. The argument fails to take

    Opposite

    The author didn't fail to take this into account; he seems to have specifically been assuming this. Since he thinks that everybody is making their guess based on what's true in their area, then different guesses imply different areas.

    6% picked this

  4. The argument attempts to draw

    Premises Don't Contradict

    This refers to the Famous Flaw of Internal Contradiction, which is only famous for popping up in the answer choices. It's very hard for an author to contradict herself, and these premises don't contradict: - People overestimated the commonality of their car - Maybe there are different cars that are more popular in different areas, and people estimate prevalence based on their local area.

    2% picked this

  5. The argument applies a statistical

    Untrue Description

    The research subjects make statistical generalizations in guessing how prevalent their model of car is. The author doesn't apply that statistic to an inapplicable case. The author speculates a causal explanation for why people's statistical generalizations were a certain way.

    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.

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