PT91.S2.Q22 - Need help

Qiran_catranQiran_catran Alum Member
edited November 2021 in Logical Reasoning 103 karma

Hi,

I am having trouble understanding which part does "a generalization with apparently disconfirming evidence" refer to in the stimulus. And that is why I did not choose C even after broke down every sentence in the stimulus.
Here is my thought process to the question:
Structurally, the stimulus has three parts:
1. The first sentence is an OPA by some researchers.
2. The second sentence is author's conclusion.
3. The third sentence is the premise to support the conclusion.

Factually,
1. The first sentence introduces a correlation: gesture less :dbl: articulate what they regard as abstract than concrete.
2. The second sentence contains author's statement that even if the correlation stated above is not the same for everyone (not universal), it doesn't prove that the correlation is wrong for that matter. Based on my understanding, the author implicitly refers to another group of people whose opinion is that the correlation is not the same for everyone does prove the correlation does not exist (rejected).
3. The last sentence is the evidence/fact the author uses as an example. My paraphrase to this sentence is that, even some people describe the correlation differently than others, their description still falls within the correlation. So this correlation still exists.

I quickly eliminated A because the argument is not about "the ambiguity of a word". I eliminated D and E as well because they are too far from being correct based on my familiarity of the scenarios they usually describe in the LSAT.
But then I can choose between B and C because I could not match the abstract language from either answer choice to the original argument.
For B, the author does appeal to something in the premise to support the conclusion. However, the supporting premise is more of a factual evidence rather than a universal generalization.
For C, the author is using a psychological fact, but the second part of the answer choice is really difficult for me to process. I couldn't find a reconciliation between a "generalization" and "apparently disconfirming evidence". To me, the premise perfectly supports the conclusion and I can't see why it is apparently disconfirming.
I also have a disagreement with the discussion above about the author actually agree with those scientists' claim about the correlation. The author just says that not being universal does not reject the existence of such a correlation. Correct me if I am wrong please! So instead of simply agreeing with the scientists, the author points out that even if the correlation is not "universal", the correlation still exists because people describe the correlation in various ways.

Lastly, for questions of method of reasoning, we need to identify the way the author makes her point. In this argument, the author uses an example to argue that the correlation can still exist even if it is not universal. However, C says that the author try to reconcile the generalization and the fact, which is different from my understanding of using the fact to support her conclusion, so I eliminated C and chose B eventually.

I appreciate anyone who read and answer my questions! Thank you!

Admin Note: Edited the title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

Comments

  • leoxnardxleoxnardx Member
    82 karma

    Hey I had a similar problem with C, and I made a discussion post a day or two ago with my take on this question. Would you mind taking a look at that and either see if it makes sense or add some more to my interpretation of it? Thanks hope that can help

  • mesposito886mesposito886 Member
    254 karma

    The generalization is actually the researcher's claim: people tend to gesture less when they articulate abstract rather than physical concepts. The disconfirming evidence is in the second sentence: that this generalization is "far from universal" - meaning it isn't applicable to all cases. But the stimulus' conclusion states that just because the researcher's claim doesn't happen all the time doesn't mean we have grounds to reject it. The last sentence points to the psychological fact that people may perceive words differently than others. So if someone doesn't make gestures while articulating something we view as a physical concept, it may actually be the case that they think of it as an abstract one. While the stimulus isn't actually agreeing with the researcher's claim, it's doing more to defend the claim than undermine it by presenting an alternative explanation for why the claim seems to be in conflict with our evidence (aka reconciling the two).

    The reason why B isn't the correct answer is for that reason: the conclusion doesn't say that the researchers are correct (aka supporting the claim), it just says the evidence alone doesn't provide a sufficient reason for the claim being wrong.

  • Qiran_catranQiran_catran Alum Member
    edited November 2021 103 karma

    @mesposito886 said:
    The generalization is actually the researcher's claim: people tend to gesture less when they articulate abstract rather than physical concepts. The disconfirming evidence is in the second sentence: that this generalization is "far from universal" - meaning it isn't applicable to all cases. But the stimulus' conclusion states that just because the researcher's claim doesn't happen all the time doesn't mean we have grounds to reject it. The last sentence points to the psychological fact that people may perceive words differently than others. So if someone doesn't make gestures while articulating something we view as a physical concept, it may actually be the case that they think of it as an abstract one. While the stimulus isn't actually agreeing with the researcher's claim, it's doing more to defend the claim than undermine it by presenting an alternative explanation for why the claim seems to be in conflict with our evidence (aka reconciling the two).

    The reason why B isn't the correct answer is for that reason: the conclusion doesn't say that the researchers are correct (aka supporting the claim), it just says the evidence alone doesn't provide a sufficient reason for the claim being wrong.

    Thank you for your explanation! C makes much more sense to me now. I misunderstand the word "generalization" completely. I thought the generalization was "to point out that such a correlation is far from universal"because I assumed there was another group of people holding an opinion against the scientists'. However, when I read the stimulus one more time it occurs to me that the author does not bring up another group of people. Instead, it just says that it is insufficient to reject the claim by pointing out it is not universal.

    I always try to amend the stimulus a bit to see what would make an attractive wrong answer choice to be the correct one.
    Answer choice B" appealing to a universal psychological generalization in an attempt to support a claim about the use of gestures". For it to be a correct answer choice, the stimulus should be using "a universal psychological generalization" as a premise/evidence to support a conclusion "about the use of gestures". In this case, the author says something like the correlation happens to everyone with various expressions; for example, some people perceive words like "comprehension" as expressing a physical action rather than abstract one, in the opposition to other people who perceive words like "comprehension" as expressing abstract one.
    And the conclusion will be like "the scientists' claim about the correlation between gesturing and articulating what would be abstract rather than physical concepts is correct.

Sign In or Register to comment.