#8 - A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a

[rgold3]

Hi, can you please explain the difference between A and E?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi R,

The thing that jumps out to me is the force of the conclusion in the stimulus: "no such thing." Now look at (A) and (E) with that in mind:

• Answer choice (A): "seldom fatal"
  
  Answer choice (E): "no deer in the area"

Answer choice (E) is just as definitive as the stimulus—it's an absolute statement. But answer choice (A) dials down the strength of the conclusion with that "seldom." With the absolute removed, answer choice (A) actually is a valid argument (whereas the stimulus and E are not valid, another reason that A is incorrect).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[KG!]

Hi would you mind going through each answer choice? During my PT, I originally chose A and was actually between A and B. Even though I chose A I was a bit skeptical because 1) same idea as the stimulus (big red flag but doesn't entirely make the answer choice wrong) 2) there term seldom fatal didn't match the language absolutely, but I thought in the moment it closely conformed.

During my blind review I realized the correct answer was E. They clearly have similar reasoning based on the fact that:
1) The psychiatrist found that there was NO such thing as MPD v. Jerrod believed that there was NO deer in the area BECAUSE
2) the psych never encountered that type of case v. Jerrod never spotted a dear in the area
3) They each concluded that there couldn't be something on the basis of them not seeing/experiencing it themselves.

I also noticed that the flaw in this stimulus is one of the use of evidence. The mere fact of there not being evidence (in the case of a person directly dealing with it themselves) is not grounds for saying that such thing/event is false. I noticed this flaw in my initial analysis of the stimulus, yet I still chose A...besides reviewing this question what other tips do you have to avoid this mistake?

Also, I noticed my blind review isn't as helpful as it should be. Based on this description of my initial and then later analysis what type of notes should I be writing down? In other words, if you were in my position what notes would you make to yourself about this question type and this situation. In BR I sometimes find myself writing "avoid this mistake/ watch out for language'," but all it does it make me be more cognizant of language of the LSAT and clearly im getting this questions wrong plus others wrong in timed or maybe even untimed conditions. What else should I note?

So many questions in my post :/ But thank you in advance for answering them!!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi KG!

Answer choice (A) is incorrect because, as you pointed out, "seldom fatal" doesn't match the strength of "no such thing."

Answer choice (B) is a little different than the stimulus because the evidence in the stimulus is based on just the personal experience of the psychiatrist, but the evidence in (B) is based on everyone in the area. So (E) ends up matching better.

Answer choice (C)'s conclusion that "therapy was not warranted" (which is about something being needed/justified) does not match the conclusion in the stimulus that "there is not such thing" (which is about something existing).

Answer choice (D) we can get rid of pretty quickly because it has a "probably" in the conclusion, but the conclusion in the stimulus is very absolute and certain ("no such thing"). This reasoning is also more temporal in nature (Natasha has always done this, so she will probably continue doing it).

Answer choice (E) is correct because, as you noted, it is based on Jerod's personal experience of not seeing deer and then concludes that deer do not exist in the area.

Remember that with these Parallel Flaw questions, you want to match the flaw in the stimulus, but you also need to match the premises and the conclusions just as you would in a regular Parallel question. If a conclusion doesn't match (as in answer choice (A)), that's a quick and easy elimination.

If the blind review is making you more cognizant of LSAT language, that's important! Studying for the LSAT is like learning a new language. It takes time and practice to become fully fluent. So the more that you carefully review questions and study them as if you had to teach them to someone else, the more you're learning and internalizing how the LSAT works.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey