***
This Logical Reasoning question is from the June 2004 LSAT.
This argument confuses cause and effect. Kids in advanced math have better grades, but it's because they are smart and get good grades that they enroll in advanced math. They don't get good grades because they were in higher math. The pre-phrase of the correct answer identifying the flaw would be: "the cause is mistaken for the effect and the effect is mistaken for the cause." In other words, it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. Let's look at the choices:
A) Out of scope because it doesn't have the same flaw. It says heredity causes color. Color doesn't cause heredity, so cause and effect aren't confused here.
B) Wrong for the same reason as A. It's the liquor in the mixture, not the water, that causes intoxication. There's no cause/effect confusion.
C) Wrong for the same reason as the first two. Weight gain doesn't cause the consumption of fats and carbs, so there's no cause/effect confusion.
D) Correct. It's not that buying a lot of running shoes results in frequent exercise. There's more reason to believe frequent exercise causes frequent purchases of running shoes. All the exercise wears them out, requiring one to buy more. Cause/effect are confused here, which is what we're looking for.
E) Wrong for the same reason as the others. A lack of interest in reading later in life doesn't cause children not to have been read to earlier in life. This is impossible, so there's no cause/effect confusion.
Remember:
1) Pre-phrase on parallel reasoning questions (anything that ask you find to similar reasoning, a similar flaw, etc.) to identify the type of reasoning or flaw you'll want in the choices. This keeps you on track to quickly find the right answer.
2) Eliminate choices outside the scope of the argument's flaw (in this case, no cause/effect confusion means this choice doesn't address the question by having the same kind of flaw as the original argument).
the issue is whether or not there is a causal element between varibles right? How come the water in the booze doesn't meet this standard?
ReplyDeleteHi, I just saw this comment, I hope you see this response.
ReplyDeleteIt's about confusing the cause with the effect. Water/booze doesn't do this, it just mixes up two possible causes. It's the booze getting them drunk, not the water. But confusing cause/effect would be something like thinking intoxication causing people to drink water/booze, when it's the other way around.
That's the structure of the flaw in the question and that choice about water/booze lacks that structure and is thus wrong.
Does that make sense? If not lemme know and I'll explain more.
First off, thanks a lot. I actually got this question right at first glance but was kind of confused after reading the explanation but now understand your reasoning. I see the difference in cause/effect. Thanks again for this blog.
ReplyDeletehow do you know for sure that it is the cause of having good grades which leads to the effect of enrollment in advanced classes?
ReplyDeleteCan't they both be caused by a third factor like confidence or something that leads to both phenomenon? In which case, how's that different from the overweight people who also eat fat / carb diets? being fat and eating carb and fat diets can both be the effect of having say low self esteem, which is also a third factor