When weaken with alternate explan., how to if AC is ACTUALLY alternate explan. or not? PT 61.2.11

youbbyun

hello!

so for a lot of Phen/Hypo Weaken questions, the way to attack them is to find an alternative explanation. One example of this is PT61.2.11.

My question is - how do you know if an answer choice's "alternative explanation" is TRULY an alternative explanation that weakens the argument? I ask this because there are often TRAP answer choices that seem to be "alternative explanations" but are actually consistent with the argument.

For example, in PT55.1.7, a weaken phen/hypo question, answer choice E seems to provide an alternate explanation but is actually consistent with the conclusion, and is thus a trap wrong AC.

But back to PT 61.2.11, AC A is the right AC. But how do we know it's actually an alternate explanation? Can't it also be consistent with the explanation? Can't it be the case that drivers feel possessive of their parking space and are also less quickly able to perform maneuvers with their car?

When you provide an alternate explanation to weaken a phenomenon, does it have to be completely distinguished from the original hypothesis in the conclusion?

In sum, how do you tell the difference between trap wrong AC's that seem to provide "alternate explanations" but are actually consistent with the original hypothesis in the stimulus, and real right AC that are actually alternate explanations that weaken the argument.

Many thanks!

Small_victories

@username_hello said:

For example, in PT55.1.7, a weaken phen/hypo question, answer choice E seems to provide an alternate explanation but is actually consistent with the conclusion, and is thus a trap wrong AC.

What alternative explanation do you think E) provides?
E) is an incomplete answer choice. If it had said, worker safety conditions in all industries improved due to some altnerative event, that would weaken the argument. A correct Weaken AC should clearly point us in the direction of weakening. This answer choice doesn't give us any direction.

But back to PT 61.2.11, AC A is the right AC. But how do we know it's actually an alternate explanation? Can't it also be consistent with the explanation? Can't it be the case that drivers feel possessive of their parking space and are also less quickly able to perform maneuvers with their car?

Yes, possibly it is consistent. Remember that "Weaken" answer choices do not have to completely destroy the original argument. As long as you provide some altnernative explanation to a phenomenon, that would weaken the argument. Notice that this AC clearly points us in the direction of weakening by suggesting another explanation.

You can also compare PT55.1.7's right answer choice with that of PT61.2.11. The correct AC for PT55.1.7 could also be consistent with the argument. A government official defending the effectiveness of the legislation could respond to AC A) by saying, "Yes, sure. Tech innovation has helped improve worker safety conditions in high-risk industries. But remember that it was OUR legislation that provided funding for that innovation". Weaken AC's only have to provide some bit of extra info that could potentially provide an alternative explanation.

In sum, how do you tell the difference between trap wrong AC's that seem to provide "alternate explanations" but are actually consistent with the original hypothesis in the stimulus, and real right AC that are actually alternate explanations that weaken the argument.

Look for the cues for a sense of direction. If an AC can go either way (either strengthen or weaken or do nothing), then that is probably incorrect. Correct Weaken AC's can be consistent with the argument, but they should pose a clear question against the validity of the conclusion.

BinghamtonDave

@username_hello this is an excellent question. I should start by stating that I believe catching an alternative explanation when the LSAT writers are laying one down is the single most difficult part of logical reasoning: especially when blocking an alternative explanation on a strengthening question with he phenomena/hypothesis structure.
For question 7 on PT 55, (E) is not truly an alternative explanation because alternative explanations are different from our original explanation. For (E) we don't know if we are talking about a truly alternative explanation, reading closely this explanation can be the one in which we originally hypothesized in our stimulus: government intervention. Take a close look at the first sentence in our stimulus, that first sentence does not exclude the possibility of government control over the industrial workplace safety being part of some larger government control over industry, thus it is commensurate with the original hypothesis. So, we are telling the difference here between a true alternative and a faux-alternative by the specificity. If left open ended enough to be attributable to basically the same hypothesis as our original: we have a fake alternative. In other words: a fugazi.

Here is what I hope is a helpful analogy to explain this process:
Last week, my dog got fixed, she had surgery
When we went to the pet hospital to pick her up, she was very sluggish and tired and wasn't herself.
Therefore, the surgery probably made her sluggish and tired

If we want to weaken that line of reasoning: we could actually say something like: actually it was the car ride home from the pet hospital that made her sluggish, or actually, it was the food they gave her afterwards: it didn't agree with her and made her feel sluggish. These are alternative explanations apart from our original. Now, what (E) is essentially saying in this example is: all the dogs that went to the pet hospital that day to get fixed returned to their respective homes sluggish and tired. In a sense, this deepens the mystery: so now its just not my dog, its the others, but this explanation is also commensurate with the surgery having this effect on all the other dogs! That is what (E) does.

61-2-11 is a tiny bit more technical. We have our phenomena, but then we have an explanation for that phenomena, that really comes out of left field: that drivers feel possessive over their spots. Interestingly enough we have this increase in the time it takes the people pulling out of their spots. "This suggests that..." is statement by the author that I see as the author taking a leap: a leap of understanding. Answer choice (A) plainly and clearly states that this is not the case, because the test writers are introducing (A) as a known cause/hypothesis. So it appears to me that (A) is stated as a fact of the matter.

In summation: to answer your core question, I think yes, when given something that is a separate cause/hypothesis, we are asked to assume that that cause/hypothesis was not acting in concert with our initial hypothesis. This is what I call playing the game of the LSAT. So, we are given that quick blurb at the beginning of our LR about not making assumptions that are "by common sense standards implausible, superfluous..." I believe on these questions (weakening/strengthening phenomena hypothesis) it would be implausible to expect us to say that a separate cause was acting in conjunction with our original hypothesis in some split: 70/30, 60/40 etc. I'm think-and I'm totally open for correction here- what they want us to do is see the answer choices as a separate hypothesis that could account for the observed phenomena, without our old hypothesis.

I hope this makes sense
David