I feel like if you took Psychology in college, this is just extra info that you already know. If anyone needs help understanding this, I can do my best to explain it for you.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "evenly" rather than "randomly" split? Let's say you know that there are 10,000 people between the age of 60-80 in the study. You should identify them and split them evenly right?
Absolutely. Experiment replication is a foundational aspect of the scientific method and I don't think any professional worth their salt would accept the validity of any experiment that did not undergo replication yielding similar results. It's a somewhat similar concept to this lesson's discussion of needing a large sample size to have an ideal experiment. We cannot just take the cases of a few individuals and apply it to the larger population.
I'd guess the lesson didn't want to delve too far into discussing all aspects of the scientific method in order to avoid overcomplicating the foundational principles of ideal experiments as they relate to testing the validity of hypotheses in causal arguments.
It may be discussed in more detail in the upcoming "Logical Reasoning" section, but I have encountered questions on practice tests that present a causal argument and ask to select an answer choice that weakens the argument where the correct answer is something along the lines of "this argument assumes the case for one instance to be the case for all instances," or some other version of that. For those questions, it's definitely helpful to know that being able to reproduce similar results is important when attempting to apply one's findings to the broader population.
Perhaps It is because I did STEM in my undergrad, but this is so incredibly important to the LSAT and the actual law. Say an expert witness for a case discusses that X was caused by Y as determined by an experiment. If they did not account for Z, and Z occurs in this case and could be correlated to the outcome of Y, how could we conclusively blame X for causing Y? Z Could very well have caused Y!
So if we were to weaken an argument that X caused Y, and one of the options was discussing Z, which was also present and could lead to Y, that would significantly weaken the argument that X caused Y
" But even humdrum participants won't cut it simply because there aren't enough of them to capture the vast variety of characteristics in the population." I think you misspelled "hundred" unless you meant unexciting and dull people.
You'll see in future LR question types (ex. Strengthen, Weaken) that understanding what an ideal experiment is can actually lead you to the correct answer (spoiler alert: an alternative hypothesis)
can someone help me out how is this part of the "experiment" going to help us in the lsat that is something im confused about and I dont understand this part of the section so can someone please help me see the benefit in this part?
many weakening/strengthening questions hinge on your understanding of the ideal experiment, or more specifically how whatever experiment is being talked about is short of the ideal. for weakening, you can prephrase where they messed up and hunt an AC; for strengthening, let's say you see some gap in their experiment, to patch it up, hunt ACs to see if that aspect of the ideal experiment is there. I hope that helps!!
Nope, humdrum, because the example referred to a genetic anomaly and his point is that even if the two people were perfectly normal, it still wouldn't be a large enough sample size.
I'm thinking in a stem it would bring up an experiment, and based on the "ideal" experiment, it could weaken or strengthen an argument.
For example, "An experiment was run on 12 cats from Indonesia to see if they knock over trash bins with salmon. All 12 knocked over the bin, thus cats always knock over bins with salmon."
This sample size was unrepresentative because, one, it wasn't a large enough sample size. What if all 12 cats are starving strays who will scavenge anywhere and everywhere for food? Two, because the sample is only from one specific place. What if in Indonesia, the only cat food they have is salmon flavored? So when a cat smells it, it automatically assumes it's time to eat?
For me, if I saw that example of an experiment in a question stem, my mind would already be considering this experiment as unideal, and therefore a point of weakening. Idk if that helps.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
35 comments
Why is this relevant to the test?
@GabrielaH that my friend will reveal itself as you go lol
I feel like if you took Psychology in college, this is just extra info that you already know. If anyone needs help understanding this, I can do my best to explain it for you.
chat im cooked
@zee.marie me too im just going through the motions atp
is it just me or this part is too much unnecessary info!!!
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "evenly" rather than "randomly" split? Let's say you know that there are 10,000 people between the age of 60-80 in the study. You should identify them and split them evenly right?
@ryanbshort I was thinking the same! If the split was truly "random" then there's no control over the diversity within the groups.
no idea whats going on. where are the videos?
@legallyhaya me
[This comment was deleted.]
Is it not necessary for an ideal experiment to be repeated? Wouldn't the number of times the experiment is repeated affect the strength of causality?
Absolutely. Experiment replication is a foundational aspect of the scientific method and I don't think any professional worth their salt would accept the validity of any experiment that did not undergo replication yielding similar results. It's a somewhat similar concept to this lesson's discussion of needing a large sample size to have an ideal experiment. We cannot just take the cases of a few individuals and apply it to the larger population.
I'd guess the lesson didn't want to delve too far into discussing all aspects of the scientific method in order to avoid overcomplicating the foundational principles of ideal experiments as they relate to testing the validity of hypotheses in causal arguments.
It may be discussed in more detail in the upcoming "Logical Reasoning" section, but I have encountered questions on practice tests that present a causal argument and ask to select an answer choice that weakens the argument where the correct answer is something along the lines of "this argument assumes the case for one instance to be the case for all instances," or some other version of that. For those questions, it's definitely helpful to know that being able to reproduce similar results is important when attempting to apply one's findings to the broader population.
Perhaps It is because I did STEM in my undergrad, but this is so incredibly important to the LSAT and the actual law. Say an expert witness for a case discusses that X was caused by Y as determined by an experiment. If they did not account for Z, and Z occurs in this case and could be correlated to the outcome of Y, how could we conclusively blame X for causing Y? Z Could very well have caused Y!
So if we were to weaken an argument that X caused Y, and one of the options was discussing Z, which was also present and could lead to Y, that would significantly weaken the argument that X caused Y
" But even humdrum participants won't cut it simply because there aren't enough of them to capture the vast variety of characteristics in the population." I think you misspelled "hundred" unless you meant unexciting and dull people.
hum·drum/ˈhəmˌdrəm/: lacking excitement or variety
#feedback Is there time to run an experiment given the exam is timed?????? What the point of all off this please I need the bottom line.
This concept comes up again in an important way. Just trust the process:
https://7sage.com/lesson/theory-and-approach-ideal-experiment/?ss_completed_lesson=26473
Relax bro
You'll see in future LR question types (ex. Strengthen, Weaken) that understanding what an ideal experiment is can actually lead you to the correct answer (spoiler alert: an alternative hypothesis)
This isn't a TikTok video. Sometimes it takes time before the payoff becomes apparent.
#feedback
The point is.…¿ LSAT
It should really be clear about how this applies to the LSAT.
can someone help me out how is this part of the "experiment" going to help us in the lsat that is something im confused about and I dont understand this part of the section so can someone please help me see the benefit in this part?
I literally just said "whats the point of this" out loud and then checked the comments hoping I wasnt alone lmao
many weakening/strengthening questions hinge on your understanding of the ideal experiment, or more specifically how whatever experiment is being talked about is short of the ideal. for weakening, you can prephrase where they messed up and hunt an AC; for strengthening, let's say you see some gap in their experiment, to patch it up, hunt ACs to see if that aspect of the ideal experiment is there. I hope that helps!!
#feedback Typo: "But even humdrum participants won't cut it simply because..." im assuming it was meant to be "a hundred"
Nope, humdrum, because the example referred to a genetic anomaly and his point is that even if the two people were perfectly normal, it still wouldn't be a large enough sample size.
#feedback Typo: “Why couldn't we have
ranrun the experiment with just two people?”Hey there,
Nice catch! I've corrected the typo you pointed out. Feel free to let us know if you find any more or if you have any questions!
under what context do you run an expriement It would be helpful to see this used in a question stem #help
1-3 LR questions in the test may directly talk about an experiment. And the answer is that they didn't randomize/control for all variables/etc.
I agree!! #help
I'm thinking in a stem it would bring up an experiment, and based on the "ideal" experiment, it could weaken or strengthen an argument.
For example, "An experiment was run on 12 cats from Indonesia to see if they knock over trash bins with salmon. All 12 knocked over the bin, thus cats always knock over bins with salmon."
This sample size was unrepresentative because, one, it wasn't a large enough sample size. What if all 12 cats are starving strays who will scavenge anywhere and everywhere for food? Two, because the sample is only from one specific place. What if in Indonesia, the only cat food they have is salmon flavored? So when a cat smells it, it automatically assumes it's time to eat?
For me, if I saw that example of an experiment in a question stem, my mind would already be considering this experiment as unideal, and therefore a point of weakening. Idk if that helps.
isn't the answer just that you run an experiment when you want to test a hypothesis and come to a conclusion?
#help (Added by Admin)
SAME #HELP