PT34.S2.Q09 - a university study reported

LowFlyBy

I am having difficulty seeing why the correct answer in this question is D. The argument shows that two methods of investigation yielded different results. The conclusion then states that there is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results. Answer D states that the argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to "recognize that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results". I don't see how this is a flaw of the argument. If they had recognized that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results what affect does that have on a study that didn't have identical results.

Any insights that you can provide would be appreciated.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-09/

Sami

Hey,

So lets say biologists through brain scans can prove that our hypothalamus, a region in the brain is responsible for our moods. But psychologist also through prescribing medication can also prove that hypothalamus in brain is responsible for moods. They both used different methods; the biologists used brain scans and psychologists used medication to reach the same conclusion about a part of the brain affecting the mood.

If this is true, then two studies that used different methods can reach the same conclusion.

Our stimulus in question 9 is basically saying that two studies that used different methods arrived at two different conclusions. But instead of investigating why they arrived at two different conclusion, it concludes that the reason it reached two different conclusions is because the two studies used two different methods. But we know from our example about biologist and psychologist that two studies can use two different methods and it doesn't have to affect the truth of the conclusion.

And that's what answer choice "D" is getting at. That the stimulus in question 9 is forgetting that the methods can be different and may not be the cause of why two studies reach different conclusion and we should look further about why they reached two different conclusion.

angelin_ju1101

Okay, let me try to explain this for you.

The argument in this question is basically committing the given flaw:
Let's say that you fall from a stair and went to examine whether your knees are okay.

You went to one hospital and x-rayed and it says that you are fractured.
And then you went to another hospital and MRIed and it says that your knees are just okay.

In such case, you would not conclude that 'oh, they say two different things because they used two differ that examining machines!'

You would visit another doctor or try to see whether there is any flaw in examining machines which were used.

Likely, the author in this argument is overlooking the possibility that despite of the difference in the methods, two methods may come to the same conclusion or either one was conducted in a mistaken manner.

If we look at the individual answe choices:
(A) It is irrelvant
(B) No such flaw
(C) It is tempting, but it is inadequate.
(D) correct answer
(E) Out of scope

I hope this helps!

LowFlyBy

Thank you both for the explanations that you provided to assist my understanding. I really appreciate it. Sami, your explanation I think helped open my understanding. The difficulty was seeing that he came to his conclusion because he assumed different methods will always yield different results. Thanks again.

Sami

My pleasure
I am glad it helped : )