PT111.S1.Q13

PrepTest 111 - Section 1 - Question 13

Hide analysis

Journal: In several psychological studies, subjects were given statements to read that caused them to form new beliefs. ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████

Argument Summary · A Definitely True Story

As I sat down to write this explanation, a researcher ran up to me and told me something that made me form a new belief:

Statement: “I just saw in a reddit thread that Australia exports camels to the Middle East!”
My new belief: Australia exports camels to the Middle East.

The researcher then said “I’ll be right back. Back in like 10 minutes.”

Then 10 minutes passed. What happened during that 10 minutes? You don’t know.

Then the researcher came back and said “I have a confession: I was lying earlier. I never saw that reddit thread. Do you still believe Australia exports camels to the Middle East?”

“Yes I do,” I said.

The researcher replied, “I can’t believe you’re holding onto that belief without any credible evidence!”

Anticipation · No Evidence At All?

“[I]n the absence of any credible evidence” should stand out as the problem because it’s such a strong statement and it’s so unsupported. We know that the original evidence was called into question by the researcher, but there are a few problems with concluding I had no credible evidence whatsoever.

First, the researcher just established they’re willing to lie – perhaps I’m viewing the original evidence as credible and I’m choosing to disbelieve the researcher’s “I was lying” statement instead.

Second – and this is the angle the correct answer takes – perhaps I used the 10 minutes between the original statement and the later “I was lying” statement to search for other sources confirming this unlikely fact, generating my own credible evidence. Wow! Turns out it’s true!

Show answer
13.

Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████████

a

Regardless of the █████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ████████

(A) is wrong because it’s less effective than (D), not because there’s nothing going for it.

There’s a curriculum-based reason for you to dislike (A), though: mental state v. reality. Just because these statements were true in fact does not mean the participants had access to credible evidence supporting them.

I’ll grant that true statements are more likely to have credible evidence behind them, which suggests perhaps that these participants may have found that evidence, but the leap from evidence existing to evidence being in the participants’ heads is both a big one and a commonly-tested one.

Compare that with (D)’s straightforward assertion that the participants went out and found credible evidence and put it into their heads.

Failed alternate explanation
17%
b

It is unrealistic ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ █ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █████████

(B) explains how the conclusion could be true rather than making it less likely. In (B)’s world, people hang onto their original beliefs because they don’t remember where they originally came from – they don’t realize they lack credible evidence because they’ve forgotten where the belief originally came from.

4%
c

The statements originally █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ █████

In many respects, (C) is a “strengthener” version of (A). If the original statements were highly misleading, that makes the participants less likely to have credible evidence for their beliefs, which is good for the argument’s overall conclusion.

But like (A), the real world truth of the original statements is much less important than their perceived truth – the phenomenon we’re describing is what happens when people think the evidence for their beliefs is false.

2%
d

Most of the ████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████

Remember the 10 minute gap from the story I told in the analysis section? (D) says “Mikey spent that 10 minutes looking up independent sources for the camel story and found them.”

This directly undercuts the notion that the participants had no credible evidence whatsoever – they do have evidence! They got it between the original statement and “later.”

Alternate explanation
74%
e

Most of the ████████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ██ █████

This is inert, and arguably a slight strengthener. (E)’s initial skepticism is about the participants’ attitude before they formed the beliefs, and the stimulus already tells us they formed them anyway.

So it adds no credible evidence for their beliefs. If anything, it makes the participants’ perseverance look even less evidence-driven: they doubted the source, it was then debunked, and they still held on.

3%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic
More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

Confirm action

Are you sure?