Q24 - In an effort to reduce underage drinking

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The pledge to not drink alcohol until they're of legal age seems to be working.
Evidence: Many 17 year olds who don't drink have taken the pledge. Most 17 year olds who do drink, have not taken the pledge.

Answer Anticipation:
The evidence is a correlation, while the conclusion is causal. A correlation between X and Y can often be explained several ways besides the author's "X caused Y":
1. It's just a coincidence (rare)
2. Y actually caused X (reverse causality)
3. X and Y are both attached to Z, so that's why they're correlated (some third factor).

I find #2 pretty appealing here ...
it seems like "being an underage drinker" would cause me to NOT take the pledge (Y actually caused X).

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The conclusion IS about efficacy of method, but the premise has nothing to do with "morality".

(B) The author isn't concluding that the pledge is the BEST method, so a 'more effective' method to curb underage drinking could never hurt this argument.

(C) Yes! "infers" = concludes. The author does indeed infer that "pledging was the cause of not drinking" from the evidence of "an association (correlation) between the pledge and not drinking".

(D) This refers to the Conditional Logic flaw (aka "Nec vs. Suff"). Was there any conditional logic in the Premises? Nope. So it can't be the Conditional Logic flaw.

(E) You can't confuse those two claims because they mean the same thing. "Some" and "many" statements are completely reversible. "All" and "Most" statements are not.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a relatively easy question towards the end of an LR section. It's worth reminding ourselves to "keep moving" during the Difficult Zone of 13-21 when questions seem to get long and hard.

#officialexplanation

[Jacqmarie]

I at first chose C, the correct answer, but then got tripped up on the wording of E and for some reason chose it under time pressure. I understand why the correct answer is C but can someone breakdown E for me please?

[sumukh09]

I at first chose C, the correct answer, but then got tripped up on the wording of E and for some reason chose it under time pressure. I understand why the correct answer is C but can someone breakdown E for me please?

I chose E on the actual exam and I'm sure it was because of the pressure of time + test day nerves.

Before breaking down E, we should break down the argument.

This is a flaw question so let's look at the core for any gaping holes between the premises and conclusion.

Core: many who took the pledge do not drink and all people who drink have not taken the pledge ----> the pledge has been successful in deterring adolescents from drinking

Gap: maybe there's another reason the surveyed adolescents don't drink - does it have to necessarily be because of the pledge?

E says something that the argument doesn't do, and even if it did do what E is saying, it still wouldn't be a flaw. So what if they confuse the two claims? Both claims say the exact same thing!

[matthew.mainen]

What would be an example of answer choice E in an argument - confusing many A's are B's with many B's are A's. In other words, what would we have had to have seen in the argument for E to be viable.

[oa246]

E is a nice distraction because of how it’s written. Notice how both quantifiers refer to "many." Both are the same thing.

Many people in the NBA are over seven feet tall and many people who are over seven feet tall are in the NBA. These two *could* be different, but they also could be the same. Logically speaking, however, they are exactly the same. "Confusing" one for the other, without precise numbers given, doesn’t get us anywhere because in the context of the question, they are logically equivalent.

Why as the Health Department’s pledge been successful? The author’s evidence is that because many ppl who drink have taken the pledge and almost all who drink haven’t taken the pledge. The only way this can be used as a premise to support the conclusion that the program is successful is by assuming that the pledge caused sobriety. No cause (no pledge), no effect (non-drinking).

That’s the flaw right there. Because these two things are associated (in LSAT-speak, correlated), one caused the other.

It’s a nice correlation isn’t causation flaw dressed up in a few more words to throw off the unsuspecting test taker right at the end of the section.

[ganbayou]

So this is not correlation/causation,
rather,
causation/effect confusion?

[ohthatpatrick]

No, it's correlation vs. causality.

(C) is saying that the argument infers from an association (correlation) between pledging and not drinking that pledging was the cause of the not drinking.