LSAT 111 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 111 - Section 1 - Question 13

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:35

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT111 S1 Q13
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
A
17%
162
B
4%
160
C
2%
158
D
74%
166
E
3%
155
138
151
164
 +Medium 147.471 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Okay so the stimulus is telling us about some psychological studies, where subjects were told to read something and that whatever it was they read caused them to develop some beliefs. Then, the researchers told them that the statements they had read were false. Counterintuitively most of the people who had formed these beliefs stuck with them, even after being told that the statements that led to them were false. This is the phenomenon that is seeking an explanation, and the journal proposes that this is because once humans acquire a belief they tend to hold on to that belief.

We have the weaken this argument, so we are really looking for another reason why these people might have stuck to their original belief that is not the result of some innate tendency to maintain ones beliefs.

Answer choice (A) really does not tell us anything. Whether the beliefs were correct or not is irrelevant to the point at issue. We are wondering why these people continued to believe they were correct even when told the opposite.

Answer choice (B) is really more an opinion than anything else. Who cares if it's unrealistic?

Answer choice (C) is similar, who cares if the statements were misleading. The participants formed beliefs, those beliefs were then challenged, and the participants maintained them nevertheless. Whether the original basis for those beliefs was actually misleading is irrelevant.

Answer choice (D) is the correct answer. If the subjects had acquired confirmation of the beliefs before being told the original statements were false, they would not need the original statements to maintain the belief. There would be another support structure for the beliefs that they developed and the original statements could fall away without a problem.

Answer choice (E) again is just totally irrelevant. Their skepticism does not actually matter because we are told that they did in fact form beliefs.

Journal: In several psychological studies, subjects were given statements to read that caused them to form new beliefs. Later, the subjects were told that the original statements were false. The studies report, however, that most subjects persevered in their newly acquired beliefs, even after being told that the original statements were false. This strongly suggests that humans continue to hold onto acquired beliefs even in the absence of any credible evidence to support them.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The journal concludes that people retain their acquired beliefs even when they are no longer supported. It points to studies where people formed beliefs on the basis of information, then kept those beliefs after learning the information was inaccurate.

Notable Assumptions
The journal assumes that the inaccurate information provided to participants was the only credible evidence to support their beliefs. It also assumes subjects were convinced that the original information was false, or at least given good reason to believe so.

A
Regardless of the truth of what the subjects were later told, the beliefs based on the original statements were, for the most part, correct.
It isn’t relevant whether their beliefs were correct, only whether there was credible evidence to support them. If the subjects held their beliefs despite lacking evidence for them, the argument stands even if those beliefs were true.
B
It is unrealistic to expect people to keep track of the original basis of their beliefs, and to revise a belief when its original basis is undercut.
This suggests it’s unrealistic to expect the opposite outcome, but does not challenge the conclusion drawn. It’s another possible conclusion of the argument, more strongly supported than the actual conclusion.
C
The statements originally given to the subjects would be highly misleading even if true.
It isn’t relevant that the information was inaccurate or misleading, only that participants first believed it and subsequently learned it was false. This doesn’t say the subjects were aware the statements were false or misleading.
D
Most of the subjects had acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs by the time they were told that the original statements were false.
This suggests subjects held their beliefs based on other credible information. Though their original basis was debunked, they had other evidence supporting their new beliefs.
E
Most of the subjects were initially skeptical of the statements originally given to them.
This doesn’t change the fact that subjects developed new beliefs based on that information, then refused to change them upon learning that information was false. It makes their behavior more surprising, but does not challenge the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply