#6 - Studies show that individuals with a high propensity

[Nina]

Do we choose answer C because the argument in the stimulus has been phrased as "tend to", which merely implies a correlation?

But, why is answer B incorrect?

Thanks a lot!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Nina,

Yes, those "tend to" phrases are simply saying these two elements are found together often. The author then uses those correlations to make the proposal in the conclusion, which trades on causality.

In (B), look at how strong the language is: "more important than any other goal." There's no assumption that promoting ethical behavior is the most important goal for a business school (there could be many other higher goals, such as producing knowledgeable students, great leaders, etc).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Nina]

hey Dave,

Thanks for your response!

And I have also have a quick question:
if we change answer B into: takes for granted that promoting ethical behavior is an inherent goal for a business school, will it be a correct answer? (because i think business schools don't necessarily have to promote ethical behavior at all...)

Thanks again!

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Nina,

That's a really interesting question. If it said "inherent," then we could first argue about whether the argument presumes that point. The contrarian view would be that the argument just says, "Business schools can..." and not that "Business schools should..." and that therefore it's not assumed that this is an inherent goal. However, for the sake of argument, let's just say we all agreed that the argument assumed it was an inherent goal. Would that then be a flaw? I'm not sure it would be. The LSAT is based around a series of commonsense assumptions, and I think there is a case that can be made that there is a general public belief that part of higher education is to promote ethical behavior (look at all the ethics classes in law school and bschool, for example). So, under that argument, even if it was presumed to be an inherent goal, this answer would still be wrong because it wouldn't be a flaw for that to occur. Answers of this nature (it happened, but it's wrong because it isn't a flaw) occur occasionally on the test, but this would be a really tricky one.

Please let me know if that makes sense. Thanks!

[Nina]

Hey Dave,

Thanks a lot! It makes so much sense now

[HowardQ]

Hi, I have a question regarding answer choice A.

The word "Tend" was used in the excerpt. If tend means it's usually true, wouldn't answer A also describe the flaw in the question? The conclusion suggested to do one thing to promote a certain result, that does not necessarily mean causality right? If the correlation is always true then the conclusion holds regardless of the causality right?

When I did the test I wasn't sure what the test maker intended for the exact definition of tend so I chose an answer that made more sense in the common meaning.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Howard,

You're right that "tend to" does not imply causality, and that's the whole problem with this argument. The premises of the argument describe phenomena that "tend" to go together:

1. Risk taking tends to go with less ethical behavior.
2. Desiring social acceptance tends to go with more ethical behavior.

These are phenomena that are correlated with one another. The problem crops up when the author attempts to make a causal conclusion from these correlated phenomena. The author concludes:

• Business schools can promote ethical behavior by teaching less risk taking and more social acceptance.

Here the author assumes, without providing justification, that the risk taking and desiring social acceptance are causally related to ethical behavior. That's where the flaw in the reasoning is.

Thus, the author neither assumes that risk taking is always associated with less ethical behavior nor does he assume that desiring social acceptance is always associated with more ethical behavior.

In both the premises and the conclusion we talk about tendencies, "tends to" and "promote." For this reason answer choice A is not a great match for our argument. Answer choice C captures the mistaken cause and effect flaw that we have here.

Good analysis here. I hope this helps.

[ShannonOh22]

The stimulus reads "And, in general, the more ethical principles to which someone consciously adheres, the more ethical is that person's behavior." It then goes on to conclude that business schools can "promote more ethical behavior" by promoting the desire to be socially accepted and not take risks (paraphrased). Promoting something is not the same as causing something to happen.

Can you guys please explain what exactly is being referred to in order to make C a correct answer here? What are the "two things" that are correlated but being taken as "one causing the other"? The way I see it, there are three different phenomena mentioned in the stimulus - propensity for taking risks, adherence to ethical principles/behaviors, and desire to be socially accepted. Which of these is being said to cause "one" of the others?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Shannon!

The conclusion here is asserting that promoting the desire to be accepted will cause the promoting of more ethical behavior. I think "furthering" or "supporting" would also be strong synonyms for "promoting" in this context if you prefer those.

There are two sets of correlations that the argument groups together. It links the desire to be accepted with positive ethical behavior (and mistakenly "concludes merely from the fact that [these] two things are correlated that one causes the other"), and it also links risk-taking with worse ethical behavior (and again, mistakenly "concludes merely from the fact that [these] two things are correlated that one causes the other"). So the flaw here sort of happens twice, making answer choice (C) doubly correct! Hope that helps.

[Peebljoh8981]

What kind of flaw would you consider this to be?