#24 - Statistician: Changes in the Sun’s luminosity

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I did these two related question, and I got both of them wrong. I just want to know why the right answer is right.

Thanks in advance,

Ellen

[Jason Schultz]

Hi ellen,

Both 24 and 25 work from the same stimulus: A statistician and a meteorologist. However, the statistician makes one of the most glaring mistakes a statistician can make: Using a correlation to prove causation.

However, the meteorologist makes an equally egregious mistake, by countering that with a fallacious appeal to popularity and an incorrect generalization.

It can be difficult to evaluate a stimulus where both speakers are committing fallacies. But the LSAT has done you one worse by effectively asking you a similar question twice. They effectively task you with finding both of the meteorologist's mistakes.

Question 24 is a method of reasoning question. The meteorologists makes the sweeping claim that any complicated enough system cannot be controlled by one variable, and then applies it to the specific case of climate. This is answer choice A.

Question 25 addresses the other fallacy, though in this case it at least identifies it as such. The meterologist simply relies on the opinion of "Any professional meteorologist" without actually addressing any of the statistician's evidence. Answer choice E reflects that.

[ellenb]

Thanks Jason,

I think I got it, however, I am confused as to how the example in metereologist statement is a sweeping generalization. I am used to overgeneralizations to be like. If one from the blue group does it than it must be that all persons from the blue group do it. (that type of the example) that is why it was difficult for me to figure out that that is a generalization and than apply it to a partiuclar example.
It seems more like a reverse of the generalization: if all blue people do it than this blue person does it. However, in that example there is nothing that says all are system that have this particual quality do this. A bit confusing. In the stimulus and the answer it esentially is using the generalization for a specific example and I have been used to the falacy where they make a generalization from one example. Please calrify, how the other way is possible?

Also, how is the second statement a fallacious appeal to popularity, is it because any meterelogist will confirm that? (so kind of saying the majority, or almost all of the metereologists will agree with him)


Thanks

Ellen

PS: it seems a simple question, but I want to see the details and understand why they are that way

[Steve Stein]

Thanks Jason,

I think I got it, however, I am confused as to how the example in metereologist statement is a sweeping generalization. I am used to overgeneralizations to be like. If one from the blue group does it than it must be that all persons from the blue group do it. (that type of the example) that is why it was difficult for me to figure out that that is a generalization and than apply it to a partiuclar example.
It seems more like a reverse of the generalization: if all blue people do it than this blue person does it. However, in that example there is nothing that says all are system that have this particual quality do this. A bit confusing. In the stimulus and the answer it esentially is using the generalization for a specific example and I have been used to the falacy where they make a generalization from one example. Please calrify, how the other way is possible?

Also, how is the second statement a fallacious appeal to popularity, is it because any meterelogist will confirm that? (so kind of saying the majority, or almost all of the metereologists will agree with him)


Thanks

Ellen

PS: it seems a simple question, but I want to see the details and understand why they are that way

Hi Ellen,

The meteorologist's response does not speak specifically to the relationship between the sun's luminosity and the earth's land temperature. Rather, the meteorologist makes a more general claim about any system that is as complicated as the one giving rise to the climate.

In other words, the meteorologist is supporting a conclusion with a relevant generalization.

As for the questionable argument, the meteorologist does not attack the merits of the statistician's statement--rather, the only evidence provided is the opinion of "any professional meteorologist," without responding to the fact that the statistician's claim has already been pointed out as contrary to those opinions. To simplify:

Statistician: Clearly, meteorologists' opinions are wrong regarding the relationship between the sun's luminosity and the earth's land temperatures.

Meteorologist: That's not true--just ask any meteorologist! ...

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

So, for the first part he is just making a general claim "any system" ex i could say "any milk cannot be consumed by people who are lactose intolerant " that is generalizing and not taking account of the other types of milk or in the case above about the other types of systems.


And for the second part, the meterologist does not attack the statements of the statistician, but just simply states that to ask the opinion of any meteorologist. So, not attacking the statements that are contrary to what any meterologist will say, but simply saying ask any meterologits.

it would be like. Someone saying "clearly the doctors are wrong about the relationship between blood cholesterol and lack of exercise" and the other person might just say "i disagree, you can ask any doctor about this relationship" instead of attacking the argument they would just tell them to ask any doctor. Is that similar to what happend in this example?

Please let me know

thanks

Ellen

[David Boyle]

So, for the first part he is just making a general claim "any system" ex i could say "any milk cannot be consumed by people who are lactose intolerant " that is generalizing and not taking account of the other types of milk or in the case above about the other types of systems.


And for the second part, the meterologist does not attack the statements of the statistician, but just simply states that to ask the opinion of any meteorologist. So, not attacking the statements that are contrary to what any meterologist will say, but simply saying ask any meterologits.

it would be like. Someone saying "clearly the doctors are wrong about the relationship between blood cholesterol and lack of exercise" and the other person might just say "i disagree, you can ask any doctor about this relationship" instead of attacking the argument they would just tell them to ask any doctor. Is that similar to what happend in this example?

Please let me know

thanks

Ellen

Hi Ellen,

I think that's it, basically; for the first one: coconut milk is a kind of "milk" that may not actually hurt lactose-intolerant people (?), so, it could overgeneralize to say that every milk can hurt those folks, though most milk does tend to hurt them. Thus, you could say it's a relevant generalization even if it has some loopholes.
As for your second example, that doesn't sound bad: saying to ask any doctor, rather than answering the specific claim about cholesterol vis-a-vis lack of exercise, is similar to what happens in the stimulus, I think.
Hope that helps,

David

[bk1111]

Why is B incorrect? Is it because what the meteorologist said isn't a "counterexample" or because of the second part of that answer choice. I am also asking because it relates to question 25 - in which the correct answer, E, states that the meteorologist did not evaluate the "merit of the putative counterexample." Can someone please clarify this for me?

Thank you!

[Jon Denning]

Hi bk - thanks for the question! The easiest, or at least most immediate, way to eliminate B is because the meteorologist doesn't produce a counterexample. That is, there's nothing is the reply that could be considered a separate "example" meant to refute/dispute the statistician's claims. All the meteorologist does is say that the whole climate system is too complicated for a single variable to control a significant aspect of it (land temperature).

Similarly, the second half of B is also untrue, as the meteorologist doesn't "establish that a generalization is false as stated," for two reasons: the response given can't be said to falsify the statistician's claims (only undermine or counter them), and the statistician doesn't make any generalizations to be falsified in the first place. The statistician's argument is a specific one, not a broader generalization...that's what the meteorologist does: climate in general is too complex for any major component to be controlled by just one thing.

[lsatfighter]

For #24, I understand why A is correct, but I'd also like to know why E is wrong. Is E wrong because the statistician just made a causal statement from a correlation and didn't actually "systematically neglect" any "unfavorable evidence"? Can you please go into detail about what makes E wrong and why A is better than E?

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi lsatfighter,

I have moved your question regarding #25 here: lsat/viewtopic.php?f=644&p=61303. We try to keep different questions in separate threads to avoid any confusion.

Thanks!