LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 13

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 13

June 2006

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

Target time: 1:02

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
PT122 S2 Q13	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 0% 154 B 2% 153 C 0% 155 D 1% 154 E 96% 164	127 135 144	+Easier	146.896 +SubsectionMedium

A survey of clerical workers’ attitudes toward their work identified a group of secretaries with very positive attitudes. They responded “Strongly agree” to such statements as “I enjoy word processing” and “I like learning new secretarial skills.” These secretaries had been rated by their supervisors as excellent workers—far better than secretaries whose attitudes were identified as less positive. Clearly these secretaries’ positive attitudes toward their work produced excellent job performance.

It attempts to prove a generalization about job performance by using the single example of clerical workers.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. But the author doesn't attempt to prove an overly broad generalization about all job performance. Instead, she uses an example of clerical workers to draw a conclusion about those same clerical workers.

It restates the claim that the secretaries’ positive attitudes produced their excellent job performance instead of offering evidence for it.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion simply restates a premise. The author’s premises and conclusion are distinct. One premise points out a correlation between positive attitudes and job performance, while her conclusion is about causation.

It does not consider the possibility that secretaries with very positive attitudes toward their work might also have had very positive attitudes toward other activities.

It doesn't matter whether the secretaries have positive attitudes toward other activities outside of work. The argument just addresses their positive attitudes toward work, claiming that this causes their excellent job performance.

It uses the term “positive attitudes” to mean two different things.

This is the flaw of equivocation, where an argument uses one term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake; she uses “positive attitudes” clearly and consistently throughout her argument, always referring to the secretaries’ positive attitudes toward their work.

It identifies the secretaries’ positive attitudes as the cause of their excellent job performance although their attitudes might be an effect of their performance.

The author argues that the positive attitudes caused excellent performance, without considering that excellent performance might actually have caused the positive attitudes. She sees a correlation between X and Y, then jumps to the conclusion that X caused Y.

Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - (E) is cause-effect confusion
(A) sample size too small / over-generalization
(B) circular reasoning
(D) equivocation

LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 13

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 13

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel