A nonprofit organization concerned

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct93% picked this

   It draws a conclusion about a population from observations of a subgroup that is quite likely to be unrepresentative of that

   Why this is right

   This is the Sampling flaw answer we were looking for. Some of the abstract language here definitely matches up: the author did draw a conclusion about a population (the 5,000 recipients) based on observations of a subgroup (the 300 respondents). Can we say that the sample of respondents is quite unlikely to be unrepresentative of the overall population of recipients? That seems to be overdoing it a little, but this is our best available answer. Does LSAC just think that "respondents" on any mailed out survey are an inherently unlikely sample? Yes, apparently, and probably with good reason. As we covered before, it's a well documented phenomenon with product reviews / teacher evaluations and such that the people most likely to respond are the ones with the most extreme opinions. We can also enlist our common sense -- if you got a mailer from a nonprofit you didn't agree with, would you fill out their survey and mail it back? No, of course not. Why would you waste your time helping out this organization whose cause you don't even support? So LSAC seems to be counting on our real world common sense to appreciate that people would be way more likely to take the time to fill out a survey and mail it back if they already support that nonprofit's cause.

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

   93%
2. B

   Not Assumed0% picked this

   It takes for granted that most individuals do not vary significantly in the opinions they would express on a given issue if surveyed

   This answer is kind of tricky. Because it starts with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we treat the idea that follows as if we're reading a Necessary Assumption answer choice. If we negated this and said, "Yo, author -- most people vary significantly in their opinions on a given issue, if you ask them the same question on some other occasion", it seems like that would hurt the argument. How can the author argue on the basis of this survey that most of the recipients agree with the organization's position if most people don't stay attached to one position over time? They might have once agreed with the org's position, but if you asked them again tomorrow, most of them would disagree. However, that line of objection doesn't actually work. The conclusion isn't present tense. It isn't saying that the recipients presently agree with organization's position, just that they agreed when the letter was sent out. Beyond that technicality, we should be worried about this answer on a common sense level. It's a very reasonable assumption that most people don't change their opinions on big social issues significantly from occasion to occasion. It would be weird for the correct answer on Flaw to be chastising the author for a very reasonable assumption.

   0%
3. C

   Wrong Sampling Flaw3% picked this

   It relies on the accuracy of a survey made under conditions in which it is probable that most of the responses to that survey

   This is alluding to a Sampling problem we sometimes, but rarely, see, in which people are afraid to tell the truth. For example, if your boss took a survey and asked, "Do you ever take any office supplies home? How much computer time do you spend on social media?" you probably wouldn't provide truthful responses. We don't have any reason to suspect with this nonprofit's mailed out survey that the respondents would be afraid to provide truthful responses.

   3%
4. D

   Reversed Conclusion / Evidence Match3% picked this

   It uses evidence about an opinion held by the majority of a population in an attempt to justify a conclusion regarding the opinion of

   The conclusion is about the majority of a population (the 5,000 recipients), and the evidence is about a small part of that population (the 300 people who responded). This answer switches those and says the evidence is about the majority and the conclusion is about the small part.

   3%
5. E

   Out of Scope: influenced opinions1% picked this

   It takes for granted that the fund-raising letter had some influence on the opinions of most of the

   The author doesn't need to assume that the letter influenced the opinion of the recipients. She is only claiming that most recipients agreed with the position. There's no reason the letter needed to change anyone's opinion. If most people agreed with that position on a pre-existing basis before they received this fund-raising letter, the argument still works.

   1%