PT35.S4.Q08 - it is widely believed that by age 80

LSATcantwin

This one tripped me up quite a bit. I need a better explanation than J.Y. gave in the video. In a flaw question, are we to assume all the premise are true? In this question it says;

"...to play a card game devised to test perception and memory."

When I read this, and this might be my major issue, I automatically assumed that this card game was perfect to test perception and memory. I did not see a reason to question its credibility. Then I read the conclusion which said the idea that perception and memory are reduced by 80 is false.

This lead me to believe that I had to show that perception and memory could not be tested in any real way. So I chose answer C.

C.) Perception and memory are interrelated in ways of which we are not currently aware.

My reasoning here was that if we didn't know how perception and memory interact, then the card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading and therefore the conclusion could not be properly drawn.

the correct answer choice just seemed to easy and to not really do anything to counter the argument. Answer E. says;

E.) Playing the study's card game perfectly requires fairly low levels of perception and memory.

this just seemed so weird to me. How can I just say "oh hey, your card game that you designed to test perception and memory does not actually test perception and memory"? This seems like I'm attacking the premise directly, and I thought in arguments we were not allowed to do that.

help...

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-08/

AllezAllez21

Just real quick, the question you're referring to is from PT35. Might want to update the title if possible. I'll look at it and get back to you.

LSATcantwin

@AllezAllez21 said:
Just real quick, the question you're referring to is from PT35. Might want to update the title if possible. I'll look at it and get back to you.

doh... ill try and fix it

AllezAllez21

From your explanation, I actually think your reasoning for C is much more a direct attack on the premise than what answer E says.

You say that C implies the "card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading," but isn't that just discrediting the premise?

E in fact allows the card game to test memory and perception. E says that the card game does test memory and perception, but that it is unable to distinguish memory and perception between 30 and 80 year olds. Maybe the card game was actually designed to test the difference in memory between 2 year olds and adults. So of course 80 year olds are able to play the game just as well as 30 year olds. That doesn't mean if the game was significantly harder, the 30 year olds and the 80 year olds would continue to score the same.

For me, the reason that C is wrong is because it doesn't actually tell us anything about the two groups (those in their 30s and those in their 80s). It just says we don't really know about memory and perception. Well, how can that help us to discredit the claim made in the conclusion? Maybe they're interrelated in a way that in fact helps the conclusion? We don't know. There is no information to push us one way or another.

LSATcantwin

@AllezAllez21 said:
From your explanation, I actually think your reasoning for C is much more a direct attack on the premise than what answer E says.

You say that C implies the "card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading," but isn't that just discrediting the premise?

E in fact allows the card game to test memory and perception. E says that the card game does test memory and perception, but that it is unable to distinguish memory and perception between 30 and 80 year olds. Maybe the card game was actually designed to test the difference in memory between 2 year olds and adults. So of course 80 year olds are able to play the game just as well as 30 year olds. That doesn't mean if the game was significantly harder, the 30 year olds and the 80 year olds would continue to score the same.

For me, the reason that C is wrong is because it doesn't actually tell us anything about the two groups (those in their 30s and those in their 80s). It just says we don't really know about memory and perception. Well, how can that help us to discredit the claim made in the conclusion? Maybe they're interrelated in a way that in fact helps the conclusion? We don't know. There is no information to push us one way or another.

Okay, so this helped me to understand why C is wrong. I can see that it attacks a premise, AND does not do much to explain the conclusion. I can see why it is wrong now. I also can see more of why E is correct. We don't know anything about the card game and how it was designed other than it being designed for perception and memory.

Now I am left with a new problem. How do I go about fixing this way of thinking. It felt so intuitively deep. It's a trap I can't fall for again but I'm not sure I'll be able to notice it next time. Any suggestions?