PT40.S3.Q11 - historian: one traditional childrearing practice

brigittebrigitte Free Trial Member
edited April 2017 in Logical Reasoning 432 karma

This question is strange -- the correct answer is not properly inferrable.

Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults. But, "no one disagrees that adults raised under the traditional practice, were, on average, as confident as adults not so raised."

The answer the LSAT calls "properly inferred" from the above is that at least one part of the causal chain asserted by the psychologists is incorrect. But this depends on 2 critical assumptions that are entirely unjustified and could easily have been described as flaws. First, just because "no one disagrees" about a statistic DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATISTIC IS TRUE. Second, EVEN IF THAT STATISTIC WERE TRUE -- that adults raised under the practice are on average as confident as adults not raised under the practice -- the correct answer IGNORES CONFOUNDING VARIABLES! Maybe the kind of child who is subject to the childrearing practice starts off with a higher self esteem than the children not so raised, so even though the practice does decrease self esteem, it doesn't make it lower than the other children on average. THIS IS THE EXACT POTENTIAL VARIABLE THAT FLAW QUESTIONS AND STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN USE ALL THE TIME. It also comes up on "explain the paradox" questions, too. If you've studied for the LSAT, you know what I'm talking about. We'd need to know that the two compared groups -- those raised under the practice and those not so raised -- started off equal in the relevant areas -- self esteem and confidence level when they become adults.

Can someone please explain to me why (E) is considered to be 100% logical, to be "properly inferred" from the above?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-11/

Comments

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    edited April 2017 8716 karma

    I gave this some thought, I think you have a solid point, this might be something you want to reach out to the LSAC about. I have heard of them answering questions. Please keep me posted on when/if they respond to your inquiry.

    Nevertheless, I am going to try to defend (E) the best I can, at the very least the best of the bunch. I think from the onset, I would be much more comfortable with this question if it were an MSS rather than a MBT, but lets look into it a bit deeper.

    1.We are told of a particular 118+ year old childrearing practice. We are also told that when this practiced was used, others who witnessed it would make a conclusion about the child's behavior.

    2.We are then told that today child psychologists would disapprove of this practice. Why? Because they believe that doing the practice would have an adverse effect on the child's self esteem and that that effect makes them less confident when grown. I think this begs the question: less confident than what exactly? Less confident than if the practice was not enacted? So the basic structure of the third sentence is this:

    Group Y (child psychologists) believes that
    Because doing X (this 18th century practice) damages the child's self esteem and damaging self esteem leads to less confident adults,
    Group Y disapproves of the practice.
    Here we have the move from belief in group Y's premise to disproval in the conclusion. In other words on the basis of a belief about the consequences of a particular act, group Y disproves.

    3.The last sentence is where things get interesting. Here we are told that "no one disagrees" meaning every single person in the world agrees without deviation that the adults who were effected by practice X (the 18th century practice) were equally confident to adults who were not (on average). This group in the last sentence by definition encompasses our Group Y.

    So it seems that our Group Y (child psychologists) hold incompatible beliefs. They believe both that practice X leads to damages to child's self esteem which makes them less confident as adults as the basis of their disapproval and also agree that in practice what actually occurred was that children raised under practice X were on average just as confident as those who were not. Essentially they believe that the practice lead to less confident adult and that the practice did not lead to less confident adults.

    At this juncture there is a fair amount to say here about the slide between belief and disproval. I will leave this up to others who know more about this philosophically than me calling: QED

    Nevertheless, lets take a look at what (E) says:

    (E) says that if it is true that self esteem damage to a child leads to less confident adults (Group Y's premise) if we are in a world where that is true, then practice X did not trigger that first element. Because if it did, if the practice did indeed reach the level of damaging self esteem, then there would be basis for their to be deviations in the "no one disagrees" super-set. What this answer is telling us in my opinion is that if Group Y's premises are true, that that relationship holds true, then on the basis of Group Y's inclusion in the super-set of "no one disagrees" we can conclude that that premise does not apply to the situation at hand. Because if it did apply to the situation at hand, group Y would not be in the super-set of "no one disagrees." In fact, by definition at that point it wouldn't even be a "no one disagrees" group.

    I have notified a very helpful commenter on these boards to hopefully fill in the gaps of my understanding of this problem.

    I hope this helps
    David

  • brigittebrigitte Free Trial Member
    edited June 2017 432 karma

    @BinghamtonDave said:
    I gave this some thought, I think you have a solid point, this might be something you want to reach out to the LSAC about. I have heard of them answering questions. Please keep me posted on when/if they respond to your inquiry.

    Nevertheless, I am going to try to defend (E) the best I can, at the very least the best of the bunch. I think from the onset, I would be much more comfortable with this question if it were an MSS rather than a MBT, but lets look into it a bit deeper.

    1.We are told of a particular 118+ year old childrearing practice. We are also told that when this practiced was used, others who witnessed it would make a conclusion about the child's behavior.

    2.We are then told that today child psychologists would disapprove of this practice. Why? Because they believe that doing the practice would have an adverse effect on the child's self esteem and that that effect makes them less confident when grown. I think this begs the question: less confident than what exactly? Less confident than if the practice was not enacted? So the basic structure of the third sentence is this:

    Group Y (child psychologists) believes that
    Because doing X (this 18th century practice) damages the child's self esteem and damaging self esteem leads to less confident adults,
    Group Y disapproves of the practice.
    Here we have the move from belief in group Y's premise to disproval in the conclusion. In other words on the basis of a belief about the consequences of a particular act, group Y disproves.

    3.The last sentence is where things get interesting. Here we are told that "no one disagrees" meaning every single person in the world agrees without deviation that the adults who were effected by practice X (the 18th century practice) were equally confident to adults who were not (on average). This group in the last sentence by definition encompasses our Group Y.

    So it seems that our Group Y (child psychologists) hold incompatible beliefs. They believe both that practice X leads to damages to child's self esteem which makes them less confident as adults as the basis of their disapproval and also agree that in practice what actually occurred was that children raised under practice X were on average just as confident as those who were not. Essentially they believe that the practice lead to less confident adult and that the practice did not lead to less confident adults.

    At this juncture there is a fair amount to say here about the slide between belief and disproval. I will leave this up to others who know more about this philosophically than me calling: QED

    Nevertheless, lets take a look at what (E) says:

    (E) says that if it is true that self esteem damage to a child leads to less confident adults (Group Y's premise) if we are in a world where that is true, then practice X did not trigger that first element. Because if it did, if the practice did indeed reach the level of damaging self esteem, then there would be basis for their to be deviations in the "no one disagrees" super-set. What this answer is telling us in my opinion is that if Group Y's premises are true, that that relationship holds true, then on the basis of Group Y's inclusion in the super-set of "no one disagrees" we can conclude that that premise does not apply to the situation at hand. Because if it did apply to the situation at hand, group Y would not be in the super-set of "no one disagrees." In fact, by definition at that point it wouldn't even be a "no one disagrees" group.

    I have notified a very helpful commenter on these boards to hopefully fill in the gaps of my understanding of this problem.

    I hope this helps
    David

    thank you for your response. it is helpful, but I still have a fundamental disagreement -- the last belief that "no one disagrees with" does not truly contradict the claim that the practice decreases confidence. Someone could think the practice decreases confidence while also agreeing that the adults raised under it are not less confident than those not raised under it. This situation is commonly presented in "resolve the paradox" questions and this answer is very common: there's a one group that started off with a different confidence level than the other.

    Any other opinions? JY? JWang? Any other sages?

  • brigittebrigitte Free Trial Member
    432 karma

    Bump. Thank you for any opinions.

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    @Q.E.D

  • hon132hon132 Free Trial Member
    edited June 2017 122 karma

    The question establishes two facts. The 3rd sentence "Nowaday...." establishes the key relationship.
    P -- > ~S -> ~C

    The 4th sentence says adults, on average, despite the practice being used, are still more confident than not. The distinction here from what you see typical flaw questions is that it doesn't point any causation. It's simply an observation about the population in that, group A turned out good, group B turned out better. There's no P -> C in this statement. At most, it points to a correlation.

    Now, regardless of confounding variables, the statements in his argument are, nonetheless, all assumed to be true (to him, anyways) and the only way for both to be true is a matter of degree. You can't have an action that leads to a negative and still be net positive.

    So, in my opinion, the only ways for both statements to be true are if
    1. P -- > ~S -> ~C (AND) 2. P -> C with C From 2 > ~C from 1
    OR
    1. P -- > ~S -> ~C (AND) 2. X -> C with X being your mystery confounder

    Both of my outcomes require E to be true. Do people have higher confidence because of the practice? Maybe it does for different reasons than how it lowers SE but it could be because a confounder like you said.

Sign In or Register to comment.