LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 20

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: 1:03

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 S3 Q20
+LR
Except +Exc
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Sampling +Smpl
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
3%
165
B
73%
168
C
6%
161
D
6%
162
E
12%
164
147
157
167
 +Harder 148.198 +SubsectionMedium

Game show host: Humans are no better than apes at investing, that is, they do not attain a better return on their investments than apes do. We gave five stock analysts and one chimpanzee $1,350 each to invest. After one month, the chimp won, having increased its net worth by $210. The net worth of the analyst who came in second increased by only $140.

Summarize Argument
The game show host concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing. She supports this with an experiment in which five stock analysts and one chimpanzee were each given $1,350 to invest. After one month, the chimpanzee increased its net worth by $210, while the top analyst increased by only $140.

Identify and Describe Flaw
There are many flaws with the game show host’s argument and experiment. First is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. She makes a generalization about all people based on a study of five, and about all apes based on a study of one chimpanzee. She also draws a conclusion about investing in general based on one small experiment that involved only short-term investing; she never considers the analysts’ and chimpanzee’s potential long-term results.

A
A conclusion is drawn about apes in general on the basis of an experiment involving one chimpanzee.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The host broadly concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing based on an experiment involving only one chimpanzee. Would other chimpanzees have had similar success? What about other kinds of apes?
B
No evidence is offered that chimpanzees are capable of understanding stock reports and making reasoned investment decisions.
This is true, but it isn’t a flaw. The host concludes that humans are no better at investing than apes, based on an experiment where an ape made more money investing than humans did. It doesn’t matter if the ape understood investing, just that it performed better than the humans.
C
A broad conclusion is drawn about the investment skills of humans on the basis of what is known about five humans.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The host broadly concludes that humans in general are no better than apes at investing based on an experiment involving only five humans.
D
Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment involving short-term investing but not long-term investing.
This is yet another example of the host’s overgeneralization. She draws a general conclusion about all investing based on one experiment that only involved short-term investing.
E
No evidence is considered about the long-term performance of the chimpanzee’s portfolio versus that of the analysts’ portfolios.
This is another one of the host’s flaws. She draws a conclusion about investing based on a very short (one month) experiment. She overlooks the fact that the results could be different after multiple months or years, especially since investing is often a long-term process.

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