#18 - Concept Reference, Parallel

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[valentina07]

Can you explain why the answer choice is A instead of D?

Side note, why is this Test #24 and not #101 as it is numbered on the LawHub Library?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi valentina,

This question asks for the answer that is most similar/parallel to plaintiffs who pursue sex discrimination cases despite knowing the statistics provided by outcomes analysis.

The first step in answering this question is returning to the passage in order to see exactly what the passage states about this group. The key/relevant sentence appears in the second paragraph, "Although the odds are clearly against the plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases, plaintiffs who believe that their cause is just and they will prevail are not swayed by such evidence" (lines 19-22).

The two key points in this sentence are (1) that these plaintiffs will continue pursuing their case because of their personal beliefs that they will win (2) despite the evidence that suggests they will not win.

Generalizing from this, we're looking for a group of people who continue doing some behavior due to personal belief that the behavior works despite evidence that it does not work.

It is absolutely critical to prephrase the answer for questions like this as it will help you avoid answers that don't parallel exactly what you need from the passage.

With this prephrase in mind, Answer A comes closest to what we want. The athletes continue training techniques despite having evidence that the techniques are unlikely to work. While this answer doesn't specifically state that the athletes continue these training techniques due to their personal beliefs, this is implied. (Why else would they continue to use these techniques despite the evidence?)

Answer D is wrong because it does not match our prephrase and the description in the passage. First, there is no discussion in the passage of the plaintiffs recruiting others to their cause to add legitimacy. Second, Answer D does not mention the contrary evidence, which is the key part of the plaintiffs discussed in the passage.

As to your side question, this LSAT, which was administered in December 1997, has been PrepTest #24 according to LSAC's numbering system of released LSATs for over 20 years.

For better or worse, the times they are a changing for the LSAT. As you have likely heard, the logic games section of the LSAT will be removed starting in August.

Due to this rather significant change to the test, LSAC is now providing older LSATs with the Logic Games sections removed as practice tests for future test takers. In order to avoid confusion, LSAC is renumbering the old tests.

Here is a link with more information.

https://www.lsac.org/blog/practice-test ... acs-lawhub

As we still have one last LSAT with logic games in June, the December 1997 LSAT is still listed as PrepTest #24 and includes the logic games!

For this old-timer, it will always be PrepTest #24 in my heart and will always include my favorite section, logic games!

[Panthera11270]

Hi Mr. Wren,

I'm currently in the process of ironing out the last handful of incorrects in my practice tests, and this is one of the questions I'm really struggling to develop an adequate process for. See TLDR at the bottom if necessary, somehow this became essay length.

>>>The two key points in this sentence are (1) that these plaintiffs will continue pursuing their case because of their personal beliefs that they will win (2) despite the evidence that suggests they will not win.

Regarding your summary of the key points, I'm not sure why we've ruled out "... believe that their cause is just". The passage seems to specifically avoid making either one a support to the other(i.e. "just and that therefore they will prevail"). This seems to strongly support a 3 point prephrase.

>>>Generalizing from this, we're looking for a group of people who continue doing some behavior due to personal belief that the behavior works despite evidence that it does not work.

I'll expand on this more in a second, but this generalization exemplifies my mental block with the question itself. This seems like the sort of generalization that could only really be reached consistently with a specific answer in mind. Leaving the "justness" objection aside, I'm completely at a loss for why someone would be expected to generalize unfavorable odds of success at X as "evidence that X does not work". That seems like it would be an easily crossed of answer had it shown up in LR.

>>>While this answer doesn't specifically state that the athletes continue these training techniques due to their personal beliefs, this is implied. (Why else would they continue to use these techniques despite the evidence?)

This is the part where I double down on that mental block. I've seen the claim that such a belief is implied/the rhetorical of "why else would they do it" in a number of explanations for this question, which I find really surprising. There are numerous alternative explanations that are highly common in fitness circles. [Admittedly, many of them depend on interpreting the use of "unlikely to be effective" in the passage to mean "unlikely to be an effective means of X" rather than "unlikely to have an effect", but consider the following: A) the latter interpretation would refer to a far more niche set of training techniques(eating raw meat vs the vast majority of exercise/workout variations) B) the latter interpretation would drastically aggravate the aforementioned "unfavourability vs non-functionality" distinction, and C) many of the alternatives would still function to various extents even under this definition]. The athlete in question could be doing the exercise to avoid injury, or while in recovery from a previous injury. The athlete could be doing it with goals in mind other than the pure "effectiveness" of the exercise like enjoyment(ego lifting, advanced calisthenics, etc) or mental training, or be limited by some logistical factors like time and equipment, or just simply because it has become routine. Their coach could be a traditionalist/big believer in the efficacy of the exercise/unaware of the statistics themselves, and therefore continue to mandate its use. It could even be a matter of having reached a level at which results simply plateau. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this seems to be a crucial load-bearing element of the explanation. Even if the athletes that fall into our very specific motivation constitute a significant majority, they can still be further separated into those convinced their action will be successful and those far less sure or entirely uncertain, and further still into those who believe that the statistics are themselves inaccurate vs those who believe the statistics are inapplicable in their specific case. Only this latter group maintains a strong-ish level of similarity to the plaintiffs, while the others are weakly analogous at best.

When using the "unlikely to be an effective means of X" definition, the logical jump here seems absolutely staggering(the language of the question is "can best be likened to" and "athletes that", so taking the group as a whole seems obligatory):
1. Assuming that one out of the wide variety of explanations for the athletes behavior constitutes a significant majority 2. Making similar assumptions regarding the beliefs of the athletes regarding the statistics 3. Thereby likening them to the plaintiff in that (in a majority of cases)they fulfill the first key point, they fulfill the second across the board, and they entirely ignore the third.

When using the alternative definition, it covers some of the weaknesses in the first step while making the second all the more challenging. In this case, both the data itself and the beliefs one would likely have to to hold to act contrary to it stray further and further from the situation of the plaintiff[additionally, this approach actually makes some of the alternative explanations even more likely i.e. alternative goals, logistical/authority based restrictions ].

[TLDR]To wrap up, while some of this might seem needlessly nitpicky, I just found this answer insanely convoluted, and I felt that all the explanations I could find online made massive leaps in their logic. While some of the minutiae can go either way, to my eyes its pretty inarguable that out of the 3 key points at issue, answer A satisfies the first point in some cases (belief their action will be successful), the second in all(they know the odds are against their success), and the third in none(justness). What I see as the other 2 (relatively) strong answers, C(1. *partial, 2. partial*, and 3. all ) and E(1. none, 2. all, 3. all), both perform similarly. All in all this just seems like an absolute wreck of a question, but I'm very open to hearing systems or approaches that would make it manageable.
*not even gonna try and defend this, we'll be here for hours, but the situations that have P1 at none almost necessarily have P2 at all*

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Panthera,

My first suggestion is to change your approach to these types of questions a bit. It should increase your speed and accuracy and hopefully help you focus on what's really key to solving these questions.

These questions are really designed to test one's ability to generalize the most important characteristics/features from a specific example and then identify a similar (but not necessarily exact) example in another context.

First, as for your question regarding why we've ruled out "believe their cause is just," this is because this is specifically relevant to the topic/subject of litigation and very likely will not be paralleled in our answer. In other words, believing that one has a just cause and that one is not bringing a frivolous lawsuit is directly relevant to one's evaluation of the merits of the lawsuit and the chance of success.

We don't know what the topic of the correct answer will be until we read the answers. It could be about sports, cooking, driving, playing video games, etc.. None of those will require a belief in a "just cause." What will be required, and what will be conveyed in the correct answer, is that someone (or group of people) will do something despite evidence that this behavior, activity, etc. is unlikely to succeed at its intended purpose.

In my earlier answer, I wrote "despite evidence that it does not work." To be more precise, I should have written "despite evidence that it is unlikely to work/succeed at its intended goal." While it certainly is critical to be precise with wording on the LSAT, I personally find it helpful to simplify the wording for my prephrase to capture the basic idea while also realizing that I will have to double check the details of any answer before choosing it. For example, when I prephrase the main point of the passage, I don't worry about wasting time coming up with a perfect, grammatically correct, asthetically pleasing sentence that captures all of the nuances of the passage. I just come up with a "quick/easy/straightforward" sentence that conveys the key idea(s).

Remember that for these parallel questions, you are looking to find the "best" answer or the closest parallel rather than the perfect answer. This means that you have to make a comparative analysis. Now, as for Answer A, it seems to me like you are looking for reasons to eliminate this answer by "overthinking" it and bringing all kinds of possible exceptions, but you haven't mentioned whether there is another answer that you prefer. The other answers are incorrect because they don't parallel the key ideas underlying our example in the passage. The only other answer that really addresses evidence of likely failure is Answer E ("likelihood of winning is remote"), but in that answer the purchasers are aware of the low chances rather than having contrary beliefs regarding their chances.

Getting back to Answer A, you're correct that there could be other possibilities for why the athletes are still training this way despite the evidence, but we have no indication of this either way. Just given what is stated in the answer (and taking it at face value), it is the best answer that we were given. Sure, I would have preferred if the answer had explicitly stated that the athletes believed their techniques worked despite the evidence, but we work with the answer choices that we're given.

Lastly, success in a lawsuit is primarily judged by whether the plaintiff wins the case, but success in other activities is not necessarily about 'winning" a competition. Several answers specifically discuss winning (Answer C is about winning an election, Answer E is about winning a charity raffle), but these are designed as traps for those who focus on the specific details of the example in the passage rather than the broad underlying ideas. Likewise, Answer B discusses lawsuits and Answer D discusses legitimate causes, which parallel specific topics/details in the passage rather than the underlying ideas.