#11 - A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby

[Dave Killoran]

Hi T,

This is a great example of how the test makers can trick readers, so let's look at (D). Brook's opinion here about (D) is that it should be inherently unattractive (regardless of statistics). I agree! For example, I saw the "few users" in (B) and immediately connected it to "Most trail users" and dismissed it as not matching since I'm looking at an error made by the author (the author's premises in support of the "But this objection is groundless" conclusion begin with the "Most trail users..." section). So, on a detail to detail level between stimulus and answer choice, we both didn't like how (D) was worded since it misdescribed the evidence, and we both eliminated it.

Why then did so many people like it? I suspect it's that they see this as a flaw in the argument being made by the group of citizens (as opposed to the author). In doing so, these students connected "few users" in (D) to the litterers in the stimulus, and then read the relationship in (D) as: "illicitly infers that just because some people will litter that they all will," or something similar. That's not what the group of citizens did, but you can see how it would seem like it made sense in context with a fast reading. You mentioned as much above, and I think we're generally in the ballpark thinking this might be the problem.

That's just a theory though, so if anyone made this error, please tell us exactly what you were thinking!

[lsatfighter]

For this question, I thought to myself, "Just because the majority of trail users won't litter, doesn't mean that all trail users won't litter. Is the author assuming that what is true of the majority will also be true of the whole?"

I was torn between A and B. I can see why A is right. The author confuses weakening the opposing argument (showing that the majority won't litter) with showing that the opposing argument is false.

As for B, I think that applying the Fact Test may help to determine why it is wrong. "Infers that because each member of a set has a certain property" within the answer choice corresponds to "most trail users will have concern for the environment" within the stimulus. "That set itself has the property" within the answer choice would corresponded to "ALL trail users will have concern for the environment." But the author never EXPLICITLY MENTIONED anything about the whole set (all trail users) within the stimulus, so B is wrong.

Is my thinking correct? Can you please explain to me why B is wrong and why A is better? Also, on the LSAT, does the word "infer" sometimes refer to anything which is implied/assumed (not explicitly stated)?

[George George]

@lsatfighter

Good Qs!

Why is (B) incorrect?
(1) You're right that the author doesn't explicitly say that all trail hikers will respect nature. That is the main reason you can reject this answer - and it's enough to do so. However, I'm just going to add one thing. The opposing citizens themselves never say "all" hikers, either! They only say that "trailer users will likely litter." So, the way to refute them is just to show that "most" wouldn't litter (as the author claims). The takeaway here is that when one author responds to another with the same logical force, then there is no "gap" or "flaw" present. This is another reason why (B) misses the mark.

What does "infer" mean?
(2) In the context of a Flaw in the Reasoning answer choice, "infer" means to assume or equate one condition with another. Here, answer (B) could be correct if the answer had read something like "illicitly infers that because one impediment to a proposal has been removed, the proposal should move forward."

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore
I understand the conclusion is wrong for reasons that just because an argument for X fails doesn't mean we conclude the opposite of X. However, if we look from the causation perspective, their argument makes sense. Since trail users will likely litter the area --> so citizens oppose developing a nearby abandoned railroad for hiking trials. Now, the evidence given is that trail users (most of them) will not litter the area, and conclude we should develop the hiking trial. Is it no cause no effect?
I guess my question is can I take the stimulus as causation? Why or why not? Secondly, is it correct to infer no cause from the sentence "most trial users will not litter" or the "most" makes it not okay?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi CJ,

The short answer is that I wouldn't consider this argument in terms of causal reasoning, and certainly the flaw is not a causal flaw.

What you cited "trail users will likely litter the area --> so citizens oppose developing a nearby abandoned railroad for hiking trials" is not a causal relationship. A causal relationship is when one event (the cause) actually, directly makes the second event occur (the effect). In that situation, the cause must occur before the effect in time. Since the trail users haven't actually littered yet, they can't be the cause.

Here, the citizens are worried that the trail users will likely litter the area, so this is their reason for opposing the hiking trail, but it is not really causal. (I suppose you could argue that their "worry/concern" about the litter is what "caused" them to oppose the hiking trail, but I'd probably not think of the argument in causal terms.)

The author is attacking the underlying concern of the citizens (litter) to weaken their argument against developing the hiking trail, but the author then goes too far by concluding that the hiking trails should proceed even though there may be other valid reasons against proceeding.