LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 14

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 14

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:52

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT106 S2 Q14
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
8%
157
B
5%
158
C
86%
166
D
1%
154
E
1%
147
136
146
156
 +Medium 147.566 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among people who used computers at their place of employment last year, those who also owned portable (”laptop") computers earned 25 percent more on average than those who did not. It is obvious from this that owning a laptop computer led to a higher-paying job.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that owning a laptop leads to a higher-paying job. As evidence, he cites an economist who found that, among people who used computers at work last year, those who owned laptops earned 25% more on average than those who didn’t.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a positive correlation and jumps to the conclusion that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, he overlooks two key alternatives:

(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe having a higher-paying job allows people to own laptops, not the other way around.

(2) Some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something that causes people to both have higher-paying jobs and own laptops.

A
It attempts to support a sweeping generalization on the basis of information about only a small number of individuals.
The conclusion is a fairly broad generalization. However, we have no idea how big the economist’s sample was and we can’t assume that he only studied “a small number of individuals.”
B
Its conclusion merely restates a claim made earlier in the argument.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where one’s conclusion simply restates a premise. But the author doesn't make this mistake; instead, he confuses correlation for causation.
C
It concludes that one thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing’s having caused the second.
This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw. The author concludes that owning a laptop causes people to have a higher-paying job, even though it’s more likely that having a higher-paying job causes people to be able to own a laptop.
D
It offers information as support for a conclusion when that information actually shows that the conclusion is false.
The author’s argument simply doesn’t contradict itself in this way. His evidence may not show that his conclusion is true, but it also doesn’t show that his conclusion is false.
E
It uncritically projects currently existing trends indefinitely into the future.
The author makes a causal conclusion about something that happened last year. He doesn’t make a predictive conclusion about what will happen indefinitely into the future.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply