PT41.S1.Q5 - My issue is in the the stimulus finding the conclusion

JusticeLaw

My issue is in the the stimulus finding the conclusion. Can Someone please help?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-05/

dubatt

Hey @JusticeLaw, the conclusion is (B) ---> "two studies that found no link between x and y are UNSOUND" (i.e flawed, not wrong but flawed. In the first half of the first sentence, the author provides a phenomenon or some context about what the studies have deduced, then in the second half of the first sentence ( after "but") the author provides their conclusion (that the studies are flawed). In the following sentences the author provides more information (premises) about why they believe the studies were flawed to support his conclusion. The heart and conclusion of the argument is that he believes that the study is flawed. Break down the stim into parts to understand the role of each component.

JusticeLaw

Thank you so very much. I have issues with difficult stimuli determining sub-conclusions with multiple indicator words. The "Therefore" sound test never rings right in my head.

clear227

To get to the conclusion, try asking yourself "why?". Read two sentences, ask yourself, "why?" and see which one better answers the other.

Example: "All swans are probably white", "Every observed swan is white".

All swans are probably white. Why? Every observed swan is white.

Every observed swan is white. Why? All swans are probably white.

The first one is a better fit, so "all swans are probably white" is the conclusion.

When you have two sentences that both seem like conclusions, try the "why" test and you will know which one is the real conclusion and which one is the sub conclusion.

JusticeLaw

Thank you so much. This is helpful and I understand your point. However, .... this is my issue. Taking the above example.

If All swans are probably white, then every observed swan is white. Or,

If every observed swan is white, then all swans are probably white.

Also,

Therefore, since all swans are probably white, every observed swan is white.

So, since every observed swan is white, all swans are probably white.

Every observed swan is white because all swans are probably white.
So, all swans are probably white, because every observed swan is white.

Do you understand my confusion? And which one is correct?

Thank you.

Granger Danger

So this swans conversation is pretty confusing I think. I don't get it. I'm not going to address it. Main conclusion questions test your ability to understand an argument and your ability to get at why the author is even saying anything. For this question, why did the statistician say anything at all? In plain English, the author says that the two studies don't test enough people when disorder Y affects 0.2 percent of the population. So the studies are bad, flawed, unsound.

I think knowing indicator words are important, but don't get so caught up in indicator words that you don't understand why the author is telling you something. The statistician here is trying to tell the reader that the studies are flawed.

clear227

Here is a more direct application of the "why" test, for the question you asked:

This is what I would call the "conclusion sentence".

"two major studies found no causal link between medical procedure X and disorder Y, but these studies are flawed"

WHY?

"One study looked at 1,000 people who had undergone procedure X and the other study looked at 1,100 people who had undergone procedure X. But because disorder Y occurs in only .02 percent of the population, researchers would need to include many more than 1,100 people in a study to detect even a doubling of the rate of disorder Y."

Phrased another way: the studies are messed up (why?) because they didn't use enough people.

You can see how the premises answer the "why?" question of the conclusion. If a person misidentified the conclusion and then asked "why?" they would not be able to find a very good answer.

When it comes to swans, consider these two conversations.

Jeremy: "all swans are probably white"
Alicia: "why?"
Jeremy: "every swan I have seen is white"

Conversely

Jeremy: "every swan I have seen is white"
Alicia: "why?"
Jeremy: "all swans are probably white"

The first one makes sense. Jeremy is reasoning through induction. The last one leaves me with the question, "why do you think all swans are probably white?", so it's wrong.

The conclusion is in the first discussion - "all swans are probably white".