This is a garbage question (by which I mean it lacks construct validity). It is presented as if the stimulus were an example of the “evidence reversal” flaw, where evidence pointing to a conclusion is used to support the rejection of that conclusion. Answer choice (A) is certainly an example of that flaw. The stimulus is not.
Why is the stimulus not evidence reversal? The owner may very well have stolen the diamonds, but the presence of his fingerprints has no evidentiary value. It is simply the fact that he had access. This fact is not used in the argument at all. If the presence of his fingerprints could support a conclusion that he participated, the absence of his fingerprints would reduce the likelihood that he participated in the theft. But, in fact, the absence of his fingerprints strongly points to his involvement. So the stimulus is NOT “evidence reversal”, it belongs to the larger category, presenting an unwarranted causal claim despite reasonable alternative hypotheses.
Choice A is ‘evidence reversal’ (the subset) where the stimulus is NOT evidence reversal. Choice A does NOT present an unwarranted causal claim, where the stimulus DOES present an unwarranted causal claim (Choice A merely rejects the likely claim). So there are no satisfying answers. I think, structurally, choice D is at least as good as choice A. Unlike the stimulus, it doesn’t take a baseline absence of evidence and posit a cause of that phenomenon (something happened and we have the absence of evidence), but it does take a phenomenon (cavities on one side) and makes an unwarranted claim about the cause, despite plenty of equally or more plausible alternative hypotheses (brushes less on the left, doesn’t floss on the left, only had one or two cavities and they happened to be on the left by chance, had an enamel injury or prior infection in an area of her mouth that makes that area more likely to develop cavities, etc etc).
There have been imperfect practice questions tests before, but still with a ‘best answer’ that follows despite not being perfect. Here, however, it really seems as if the test writers have simply fallen for a common logical fallacy (that physical evidence with no probative value, as it does not increase the likelihood ratio, can somehow support a claim it cannot). It’s very disappointing.
I got this right in 19s by eliminating all the wrong ACs using shallow dip, finding that they all contained comparative statements. The stim does not contain a comparison.
A - not comparative. Could be right.
B - "perform as well as." Wrong.
C - "more often loses than wins." Wrong.
D - "more on left than right." Wrong.
E - "twice as big as they were." Wrong.
Reread A - contains the only statement, and an obvious alt hypothesis. Gotta be it.
a harder one because for me i knew the stimulus was playing on a negation of a necessary assumption sorta thing. i immediately diagram in my head and found that
a->b
c-> / b
would be the way i would structure this question.
my first question of the day as well so maybe just trying to get the juices flowing again as well.
didnt really do active reading the first time reading the stimulus (lazy)- you see that "must" in the conclusion.
B seems alright in a shallow dip as did A. everything else kinda sucks. took alot of time diagramming a and b in super specific and abstract language, good for mastery but sucks for timing. got to the end of diagramming B and realized that "might" seriously ruins that answer and leaves A as the winner.
Got it right in blind review and one of my first instincts in defining it's flaw was to say "the argument fails to consider that Mr. Tannisch could have stolen the diamonds." which helped me select the correct question. I don't think I'll be employing this strategy moving forward but I was happy to be thinking in terms of lawgic.
@CamilleChmura I try to make the argument less explicit -- replace the words with variables like A and B or use other words to explain the stimulus' form. If you can correctly identify the form of logical reasoning, then it'll be easier to identify the correct answer because only one answer will mirror the form. In this question, the conclusion of the stimulus basically said "the person who stole the diamonds had to be anyone other than Mr. Tannisch," or in other words the stimulus' conclusion ignored the evidence in the premise. The correct answer was the only one that ignored the evidence of the premise in making its conclusion.
the LSAT writers are really awful. I can't be the only person who noticed this was question number 11. Coming across this difficult and confusing of a question would have been so demoralizing and distracting early on. If the parallel question is lower in number, is that an indicator that we ought to expect to be able to abstract the flaw without mapping it out? #help
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
@Hungarian I totally relate to this! I think the reason D is wrong is that, as you said, the hypothesis is plausible whereas even though the hypotheses in the stimulus and answer choice A) are possible, there is a more obvious explanation that was overlooked. Of course, D) also could be explained by many other hypotheses, but unlike the stimulus and A), we aren't provided with a premise that strongly suggests an explanation different to the one provided in the conclusion.
D) says: "All of Marjorie's cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right." Okay, that makes sense, I guess. Sure, there could be lots of other reasons for the cavities and it's definitely wrong to conclude that the one-sided chewing must be the explanation, but we aren't provided with evidence that casts serious doubt on this explanation.
In contrast, A) says: "The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate." Wait a minute! It'snot the cafeteria food that caused the illness? Isn't that the obvious explanation? Of course, it isn't guaranteed to have been the food, but the premise suggests that it is likely.
In both cases, the hypotheses to explain the phenomena are possible, but the explanation in D) is much more plausible than that in A).
Is it true that in Parallel/Analogy Qs, the correct AC will match the strength of the stimulus? For example if the conclusion in the stimulus says "must" like it does here, any answer choice that says "probably" or "likely" can be confidently eliminated on shallow dip because an argument that results in a "must" claim cannot be similar in form to an argument that results in a probabilistic claim?
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
52 comments
I was between A and D but chose A because of the word "only"
This is a garbage question (by which I mean it lacks construct validity). It is presented as if the stimulus were an example of the “evidence reversal” flaw, where evidence pointing to a conclusion is used to support the rejection of that conclusion. Answer choice (A) is certainly an example of that flaw. The stimulus is not.
Why is the stimulus not evidence reversal? The owner may very well have stolen the diamonds, but the presence of his fingerprints has no evidentiary value. It is simply the fact that he had access. This fact is not used in the argument at all. If the presence of his fingerprints could support a conclusion that he participated, the absence of his fingerprints would reduce the likelihood that he participated in the theft. But, in fact, the absence of his fingerprints strongly points to his involvement. So the stimulus is NOT “evidence reversal”, it belongs to the larger category, presenting an unwarranted causal claim despite reasonable alternative hypotheses.
Choice A is ‘evidence reversal’ (the subset) where the stimulus is NOT evidence reversal. Choice A does NOT present an unwarranted causal claim, where the stimulus DOES present an unwarranted causal claim (Choice A merely rejects the likely claim). So there are no satisfying answers. I think, structurally, choice D is at least as good as choice A. Unlike the stimulus, it doesn’t take a baseline absence of evidence and posit a cause of that phenomenon (something happened and we have the absence of evidence), but it does take a phenomenon (cavities on one side) and makes an unwarranted claim about the cause, despite plenty of equally or more plausible alternative hypotheses (brushes less on the left, doesn’t floss on the left, only had one or two cavities and they happened to be on the left by chance, had an enamel injury or prior infection in an area of her mouth that makes that area more likely to develop cavities, etc etc).
There have been imperfect practice questions tests before, but still with a ‘best answer’ that follows despite not being perfect. Here, however, it really seems as if the test writers have simply fallen for a common logical fallacy (that physical evidence with no probative value, as it does not increase the likelihood ratio, can somehow support a claim it cannot). It’s very disappointing.
I got this right in 19s by eliminating all the wrong ACs using shallow dip, finding that they all contained comparative statements. The stim does not contain a comparison.
A - not comparative. Could be right.
B - "perform as well as." Wrong.
C - "more often loses than wins." Wrong.
D - "more on left than right." Wrong.
E - "twice as big as they were." Wrong.
Reread A - contains the only statement, and an obvious alt hypothesis. Gotta be it.
a harder one because for me i knew the stimulus was playing on a negation of a necessary assumption sorta thing. i immediately diagram in my head and found that
a->b
c-> / b
would be the way i would structure this question.
my first question of the day as well so maybe just trying to get the juices flowing again as well.
didnt really do active reading the first time reading the stimulus (lazy)- you see that "must" in the conclusion.
B seems alright in a shallow dip as did A. everything else kinda sucks. took alot of time diagramming a and b in super specific and abstract language, good for mastery but sucks for timing. got to the end of diagramming B and realized that "might" seriously ruins that answer and leaves A as the winner.
Got it right in blind review and one of my first instincts in defining it's flaw was to say "the argument fails to consider that Mr. Tannisch could have stolen the diamonds." which helped me select the correct question. I don't think I'll be employing this strategy moving forward but I was happy to be thinking in terms of lawgic.
I often attack these by looking at key phrases such as "Must", "Some", etc. and do POE to narrow it down.. is that a good strategy or is it flawed?
@NathanStoker i do the same...
I'm ngl I didn't understand the stimulus but I got it right out of sheer luck.
WHAT
damn this one broke my streak
Got this right and only 3 secs over. Maybe there's hope🤞
I've done this question before too!!! HELP
Can someone please share their strategy for these questions? I can't find anything that works for the life of me. #help
@CamilleChmura I try to make the argument less explicit -- replace the words with variables like A and B or use other words to explain the stimulus' form. If you can correctly identify the form of logical reasoning, then it'll be easier to identify the correct answer because only one answer will mirror the form. In this question, the conclusion of the stimulus basically said "the person who stole the diamonds had to be anyone other than Mr. Tannisch," or in other words the stimulus' conclusion ignored the evidence in the premise. The correct answer was the only one that ignored the evidence of the premise in making its conclusion.
@bizzy thank you so much!
Missed the "not" in answer choice A) and was thrown for a loop
we are soooo backkkk
Yes, let's keep this up!
if an AC has "not", and stimulus doesnt, does it matter?
Guys i thinkkkkkk im getting it ARE WE BACK?
ngl iv been crushing these.... but just in 5x the amount of time i need to do it in lol... i get so caught up
Me too, now that I know the strat I can get them right every time. This was the first question that I did under target time.
This question was not it.....
Is it valid to see that only A had the word "MUST" which was in the stimulus? So the must was matching making it most similar?
D also had must. I think both the ‘must’ and ‘therefore’ being in both prompts is more convincing
the LSAT writers are really awful. I can't be the only person who noticed this was question number 11. Coming across this difficult and confusing of a question would have been so demoralizing and distracting early on. If the parallel question is lower in number, is that an indicator that we ought to expect to be able to abstract the flaw without mapping it out? #help
I was doing great on this section until this question. Just happened to be the one you can't discern the answer from using the shape of the argument.
Have been doing amazing in all other sections - Can't at all wrap my head around how it's an "obvious" hypothesis that the owner stole the diamonds. We've been taught the entire curriculum not to supply outside assumptions into the argument, and that seems to be what we did to the stimulus in-order to draw similarities to answer choice A. I can't see why it isn't D other than for the fact that the hypothesis in answer choice D is "plausible" - yet the hypothesis in D seems anything but plausible to me when there can be hundreds of other reasons why her cavities formed that way, and similarly, why it isn't plausible that the thief did in-fact just wear gloves.
@Hungarian I totally relate to this! I think the reason D is wrong is that, as you said, the hypothesis is plausible whereas even though the hypotheses in the stimulus and answer choice A) are possible, there is a more obvious explanation that was overlooked. Of course, D) also could be explained by many other hypotheses, but unlike the stimulus and A), we aren't provided with a premise that strongly suggests an explanation different to the one provided in the conclusion.
D) says: "All of Marjorie's cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right." Okay, that makes sense, I guess. Sure, there could be lots of other reasons for the cavities and it's definitely wrong to conclude that the one-sided chewing must be the explanation, but we aren't provided with evidence that casts serious doubt on this explanation.
In contrast, A) says: "The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate." Wait a minute! It's not the cafeteria food that caused the illness? Isn't that the obvious explanation? Of course, it isn't guaranteed to have been the food, but the premise suggests that it is likely.
In both cases, the hypotheses to explain the phenomena are possible, but the explanation in D) is much more plausible than that in A).
lol i was thinking if Mr. T is the owner he wouldn't have been the thief of something from his own property
Is it true that in Parallel/Analogy Qs, the correct AC will match the strength of the stimulus? For example if the conclusion in the stimulus says "must" like it does here, any answer choice that says "probably" or "likely" can be confidently eliminated on shallow dip because an argument that results in a "must" claim cannot be similar in form to an argument that results in a probabilistic claim?
#help