#21 - Chemist: The molecules of a certain weed-killer are

[lanereuden]

So for this i was thinking d was correct answer because it says the data draws from a variety of conditions similar to those in which weed killer I s normally applied
Now, I read elsewhere that answer choice d actually weakens the argument because it derives from a variety of conditions which makes sense
But for me, the qualifying language about similar to those in which weed killer is normally applied suggested to me that the data was biased...that is, it was drawn from areas in which the soil was conducive to breaking down the killing molecule, not the no effect molecule.

I eliminated correct answer b on basis that equal concentrations would indicate the data is not misleading because you there is equal and fair likelihood of the results occurring naturally, or rather, in the proper, unadulterated scientific way.

[Lsat_student2019]

Hi, could someone explain this answer choice? I understand how B is correct but am too confused by how D is incorrect. Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (B).

This stimulus begins with a description of the two molecule forms of a certain weed-killer and how local soil conditions impact the concentration of these forms, thereby impacting the effectiveness of the weed-killer. The author then concludes that much of the data about the effectiveness of this weed-killer are misleading. That's quite a leap from our premises about how the effectiveness of the weed-killer can be impacted to a conclusion that data about this weed-killer is somehow skewed. Why wouldn't the data be able to account for differing soil conditions?

The question stem asks us to strengthen the chemist's argument. Since we have a clear gap in this argument (we don't know why the data about the effects of the weed-killer would be misleading), we are likely looking for an answer choice that helps us close that gap by giving us some sort of reason why the data wouldn't be able to capture the varying effectiveness of the weed-killer.

Answer choice (A): This choice doesn't add anything to our argument. Instead, it tries to generalize our premises about a "certain weed-killer" to weed-killers generally. But that doesn't help us figure out why the data about this specific weed-killer would be misleading.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This choice fits our prephrase and fills the gap in the argument. It explains to us why the data would be misleading--it is conducted only in highly controlled laboratory studies with equal concentrations of both molecules. Therefore, the data don't take into account the varying soil conditions which may impact the effectiveness of the weed-killer in the real-world.

Answer choice (C): Again, this doesn't tell us anything about why the data would be misleading. Even if the molecule form that kills weeds is found most often, why wouldn't the data capture this?

Answer choice (D): This answer choice addresses the data, but instead of helping the argument, it actually weakens it. Remember, we are trying to strengthen the conclusion that the data are misleading. Answer choice (D) tells us that the studies on this weed-killer measured its effectiveness under a variety of soil conditions to better capture how effective the weed-killer is in the real world.

Note how (B) and (D) are basically opposites of one another. Answer choice (B) tells us the studies were conducted in highly controlled laboratory conditions (thus, not capturing how the weed-killer works in the real world) whereas (D) tells us that the studies did account for real-world conditions. Since we are trying to strengthen that the data are misleading, we want the data to have NOT captured the real-world effectiveness of the weed-killer. If, as in (D), the data did account for real-world conditions, that would attack our argument that the data are misleading. Why would it be misleading if they tried it out in various soil conditions?

Answer choice (E): This choice doesn't help us out because we don't know whether this data relied solely on the examination of the effects of only one of the two forms of the molecules. So, even if this were true, it would have no effect on our argument.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Lane and LSAT_Student2019!

I hope the full explanation above helps! Let us know if you have any further questions.

Lane, to your points: When we're talking about the effectiveness of weed-killer, we really only care about whether it is effective in the real world. If I pick up a bottle of weed-killer and it says "97% effective in labs with specialized soil, a constant 75 degree temperature and 20% humidity, and classical music playing softly in the background" I'd be like okay...but will it be 97% effective in my backyard in Ohio?? We want our studies to reflect how effective the weed-killer will be when and where people actually use it, meaning that we would want it to be tested out under a variety of conditions. If it's tested only in very specific, equally concentrated conditions, it will be misleading because my backyard might not have the exact same soil.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[lanereuden]

Yes yes thanks
But my pre phrase messed me up because:

I thought okay, so when they sampled, they probably just took one patch of land which had one specific breakdown favoritism and therefore the data was biased
So I was illogically applying logic, that is, I treated the bias of the natural environment To mean that the experiment was likewise biased and so when I saw a.c. D ( that it mirrored natural conditions), I took that to mean that the experiment was biased and thus misleading and thus I picked d.
Any advice so that i don’t do this mistake again?
(And out of curiosity what logical fallacy this is?)

[lanereuden]

Also if you think about this question from a more metaphysical perspective;
You see that it is a strengthen question while the stimulus itself is arguing to weaken the position of another individual


So there’s like two layers of paradoxicity:

1. Strengthen question with an argument intended to weaken
2. Protocol that, in otherwise normal conditions would be conducive to fairness, are actually the exact piece that biases the experiment because nature itself was biased and the experiment should have reflected that bias, rather than rectified it because that itself was the truth.
From another perspective, it is like having a judge adjudicate unfairly because those all those involved in the case acted unfairly in their contracts.
I could go on, but my assumptions/world views are invariably trashed during these lsat questions.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Lane,

Thanks for your question!

Your prephrase was perhaps okay (that the testing process only used one single patch of land for testing, which renders the data incomplete). But that prephrase doesn't match with answer choice D, because in answer choice D they describe testing a variety of soil conditions. That must mean multiple patches of land.

Another problem I see is that you've read into answer choice D a term that isn't in the answer choice itself and that also isn't discussed in the stimulus: the term "bias." There's no way for us to know whether the soil conditions where weed killer is normally applied are "biased" in a way that would render the results of the experiment misleading. So any conclusions you might try to reach on the basis of your own understanding of the term "bias" in this context will depend on whether you're right about that issue (i.e. whether the conditions are in fact biased or not). That makes the answer choice at best indeterminate in its effect on the argument. The broader lesson here is to try at all costs not to evaluate any answer choice on the basis of additional information that you don't (and can't) know about from the stimulus or the answer. In short, if the answer alone (without any additional concepts read into it) does not have the effect the question stem is calling for, then it must be eliminated. I might be willing to see answer choice D as indeterminate (rather than the weaken answer some have labeled it), but I can't see it as a strengthen answer without reading that extra term "bias" into it.

The problem in this argument isn't a "classical" (or technical) logical fallacy. It's an issue of evidence (or, rather, the lack thereof). The chemist assumes that the experiments that have produced the data about the weed killer were not taking into account the variability of different types of soils' effects on the molecules of the weed killer. But we don't know anything about how the experiments generating the data were conducted. So, the conclusion is lacking in relevant evidence.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Stephen,

Kelsey's explanation above does a great job of stating why answer choice D is incorrect (that it's actually weakening the argument, rather than strengthening it). I'll quote the relevant part of her post. If you could, let us know if there's anything specific about that discussion of answer choice D that's tripping you up, and we'll guide you through that specific issue you're having with it. Thanks!

Answer choice (D): This answer choice addresses the data, but instead of helping the argument, it actually weakens it. Remember, we are trying to strengthen the conclusion that the data are misleading. Answer choice (D) tells us that the studies on this weed-killer measured its effectiveness under a variety of soil conditions to better capture how effective the weed-killer is in the real world.

Note how (B) and (D) are basically opposites of one another. Answer choice (B) tells us the studies were conducted in highly controlled laboratory conditions (thus, not capturing how the weed-killer works in the real world) whereas (D) tells us that the studies did account for real-world conditions. Since we are trying to strengthen that the data are misleading, we want the data to have NOT captured the real-world effectiveness of the weed-killer. If, as in (D), the data did account for real-world conditions, that would attack our argument that the data are misleading. Why would it be misleading if they tried it out in various soil conditions?