This is confusing to me- with the correct answer alone, I suppose the explanation makes sense. However, I feel the explanation of why the wrong answers are wrong disregards the actual validity of said answers. How is strengthening the validity of the study, NOT strengthening the conclusion here? This is where my science degree hurts me. My immediate thought, without looking at the answers, was that bolstering the integrity of the study that provides the evidence for the conclusion, would strengthen the hypothesis. If the study has minimal flaws, then the correlation can be taken more seriously. 1- If the patients all had similar health stats, this ELIMINATES alternative hypotheses that these factors could be contributors to the abnormalities, it does not introduce it!! Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean that the reader isn't questioning this. 2- with B and C- "The patients' throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles," and, "people who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery."- Do these not strengthen the study? they both verify that the sample has no bias. When reading the stimuli, I immediately poked holes in the logic on the basis that those undergoing throat surgery are likely a biased sample, as people with throat issues are definitely more likely to snore. I just think this is a horrible question trained to trick people with a background in science
6
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
This is confusing to me- with the correct answer alone, I suppose the explanation makes sense. However, I feel the explanation of why the wrong answers are wrong disregards the actual validity of said answers. How is strengthening the validity of the study, NOT strengthening the conclusion here? This is where my science degree hurts me. My immediate thought, without looking at the answers, was that bolstering the integrity of the study that provides the evidence for the conclusion, would strengthen the hypothesis. If the study has minimal flaws, then the correlation can be taken more seriously. 1- If the patients all had similar health stats, this ELIMINATES alternative hypotheses that these factors could be contributors to the abnormalities, it does not introduce it!! Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean that the reader isn't questioning this. 2- with B and C- "The patients' throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles," and, "people who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery."- Do these not strengthen the study? they both verify that the sample has no bias. When reading the stimuli, I immediately poked holes in the logic on the basis that those undergoing throat surgery are likely a biased sample, as people with throat issues are definitely more likely to snore. I just think this is a horrible question trained to trick people with a background in science