Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q14 Superintendent: Within the school district

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

Superintendent: Within the school district overall, 11 percent of high school students drop out.

Conclusion (Clearly, then)

Participation in a work internship decreases the chance that a student will drop out.

Evidence

Of the high school students who participate in work internships, only 1% drop out (compared to 11% of students overall).

Evaluate

The author is looking at a curious fact (an asymmetric comparison) and then making a causal conclusion (X decreases the chance of Y).

Curious Fact ... how come the dropout rate for students in internships is way lower than it is for students overall?

Author's Causal Explanation ... it must be that participating in the internship causes students to be less likely to drop out.

On Flaw (and Weaken and Evaluate and Necessary Assumption), we primarily react to these Explain Curious Fact arguments by thinking,

With correlations, we're programmed like robots to think about potential alternate explanations like Reverse Cause / 3rd Factor:

- Reverse Cause: is it possible that not-dropping out is causing students to have the internship?

- 3rd Factor: could there be some underlying factor (like good grades) that is causing students to stay in school and causing them to be a part of an internship?

Goal

With Flaw, we're mainly trying to call out the fact that the author is overconfidently selling us on one possible causal explanation for a curious fact, without ruling out other possible explanations.

So look for an answer to object to the move from a correlation between internships and dropout rates to an assumption that the two are causally related.

Or look for an answer that discusses an alternate explanation for this association between internships and lower dropout rates.

14.

The reasoning in the superintendent's argument is flawed because the argument

uses evidence that is in
Too Strong: impossible to disprove
The author's evidence tells us about the dropout rates for high school students overall compared to the dropout rate for high school students who participate in work internships. The dropout rate is not something that is "in principle impossible to disprove". The only evidence that really qualifies for that label would be private, internal thoughts, or conversations with someone who is now dead or unable to verify their supposed remarks.
0% picked this
uses the key term “student”
Not Equivocation
This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Equivocation, in which the author uses the same term or concept two different times to mean two very different things. This answer is almost always wrong. In both cases that the author uses "students", she is consistently referring to people in school.
1% picked this
generalizes from a single instance
Not Sampling
This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Sampling, in which the author relies on a sample that we are given reason to think is too small, self-selecting, or unrepresentative for some reason. This author relies on statistical data, not a sample. And she's not going from any evidence that cites a single instance of a certain kind. This answer describes an argument that sounds like, "The cheerleader I met loves tofu. Thus, all cheerleaders love tofu."
6% picked this
Correct
infers a specific causal relationship
Why this is right
This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Causal, in which the author presents a curious fact such as a correlation and then overconfidently assumes one possible causal explanation for that correlation. Any time a Flaw answer is structured like infers X from Y we would want X to match the conclusion and Y to match the evidence. Was the conclusion talking about "a specific causal relationship"? Yes, "Participating in work internships decreases the chance that a student drops out". Was the evidence a correlation? Yes, the author presented evidence showing that "students who do internships are less likely than those who don't to drop out". Could this correlation be explained some other way, such as that both traits are really being caused by some underlying condition? Sure, maybe family wealth is the secret underlying cause. Because the family is wealthy, they can afford to help their children succeed in school (either by having time to help them or hiring tutors if needed). And the family wealth also means that the student doesn't feel pressured to go out and get a paid job. They can do an unpaid internship, since their family isn't counting on them to bring in some more income. We don't have to actually think of this 3rd factor, such as family wealth, to pick this answer. It's just an example of what they're alluding to when they say the correlation may have another cause.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
93% picked this
contains a premise that presupposes
Not Circular
This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the author's evidence restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. This answer is almost always wrong. Neither premise requires that the conclusion is true.
1% 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