#7 - To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person

[Mastering_LSAT]

Thanks for confirming, Robert. Greatly appreciate your help!

[DaishiMT]

I believe a much more elegant explanation to this problem is that the author made a mistaken cause and effect and that the correct answer (B) references the author's failure to consider an alternative cause for the effect.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Daishi,

That is definitely another way you can look at it!

Best,
Beth

[emilyjmyer]

Hi Johnclem,

Thanks for your question. You should treat the first premise and the conclusion as different statements, because they are; that is where the error comes in in this question.

Premise one tells us for certain that experts practice.

The conclusion claims that experts practice more than three hours a day.

These are not the same statement. Under the first, I could practice an hour a day and still potentially attain expertise; whereas, if the conclusion were true, that would be impossible.

It is an error of conditional reasoning (as discussed in the explanation above) and that is why it is incorrect; the shift in language is not a minor or unimportant one.

I hope that helps.

So this comment kind of summed up my confusion. If there is a premise that says that practicing (an undefined amount of time) makes one an expert then how is the correct answer that the flaw is that the conclusion fails to take into account that practicing for less than three hours each day may be enough for some people to become experts. I am confused because the statement that just practicing was literally in the stimulus.

Thanks!

[katehos]

Hi Emily,

To help answer your question, it's best to diagram the conditional reasoning used in the stimulus.

From the first sentence, we get that: Experts Have Practiced

From the second, we get that: Practicing 3 hours each day Will become Expert

It is in the first diagram that I think we can spot your error! The first sentence, though it does not define an amount of time, illustrates that being an expert is the sufficient condition and practicing is the necessary condition - not the other way around! So, it's not that practicing for an undefined amount of time makes one an expert (Mistaken Reversal), but rather, it's when someone is an expert, we know they have practiced for some undefined amount of time. This amount of time could be more or less than three, we don't know. We also can't say that practicing for an undefined amount of time is sufficient for making someone an expert, since practicing is the necessary condition in the first diagram! So, even with the second diagram, we're left in a gray area where we don't know if experts must practice between 1-3 hours per day. That is why the flaw is illustrated in (C)!

Hope this helps!
-Kate