#3 - In Yasukawa’s month-long study of blackbirds, the

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I it seems that I am consistently misunderstanding Strengthen questions and MBT questions especially with the questions stimulus. So this is a strengthen question correct because the question stem says : the statements above, if true support which one of the following inferences? Also in MBT dont have a conclusion and this one does.

I had originally picked C, but this would actually weaken the conclusion correct? B/c we are trying to support Yasukawas argument that age explains birds survival rate?

Also I have the LR bible as well as taken the courses and seen the blog post, but I am struggling with recognizing MBT and Strengthen questions. Can someone please help with these types of questions. My problem is the applications.

Thankyou
Sarah

[David Boyle]

Hello

So I it seems that I am consistently misunderstanding Strengthen questions and MBT questions especially with the questions stimulus. So this is a strengthen question correct because the question stem says : the statements above, if true support which one of the following inferences? Also in MBT dont have a conclusion and this one does.

I had originally picked C, but this would actually weaken the conclusion correct? B/c we are trying to support Yasukawas argument that age explains birds survival rate?

Also I have the LR bible as well as taken the courses and seen the blog post, but I am struggling with recognizing MBT and Strengthen questions. Can someone please help with these types of questions. My problem is the applications.

Thankyou
Sarah

Hello,

MBT may have a conclusion. "the statements above, if true support which one of the following inferences?" is a typical MBT stem, since it looks to justify the right answer by proving it from the stimulus. Strengthen questions are sort of the opposite of that, since the stimulus is shaky and needs to be propped up by the answer choice.
We aren't really looking for "weaken" in problem 3. Answer C sort of gets answer D backwards, though. And Yasukawa is interested in size more than age.

David

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello David

So both MBT and Strengthen questions involve inferences then? I remember that MBT cant include new information. Also for C is was saying that C is incorrect because it would weaken Yasukawa's argument right? Where as D accounts for this gap that age is better indicator of survival.

I thought with strengthen questions new information is permitted if it ties in the gap b/w the premise and the conclusion.

So with the question stem it states : the statements above if true support which one of the following inferences. So then this is is MBT question?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Sarah,

MBT questions not only allow you to make inferences; they often require you to do so (as long as the inferences you make are valid and provable using the Fact Test). The stimuli followed by such questions are often fact-based, and your inference is often the conclusion one can reasonably draw on the basis of these facts.

By contrast, Strengthen questions require you to introduce new information that strengthens the argument in the stimulus. Unlike MBT, there will always be an argument in the stimulus; your job is not to infer anything from this argument, but rather to support it by introducing new, but relevant, information.

For a more in-depth discussion on the differences between these two question types, please consult our blog post:

"Most strongly supports" vs. "Most strongly supported" in LSAT Logical Reasoning questions

Hope this helps!

[nicizle]

Hi there,

I'm struggling a bit with this question. I narrowed it down to answer choices C and D, and I ultimately picked C. The conclusion is stating that Yasukawa's assertion that size is a determinant of survival is "probably" false due to the study showing that smaller birds survived more frequently than larger birds, and smaller birds are generally younger.

The issue I picked up on in the stimulus is that size could still be a determinant of survival, but maybe smaller sizes were more beneficial to survival. More specifically, size could still be a determinant of survival, but maybe not in the direction Yasukawa may have thought. Yasukawa's conclusion could still be technically correct.

Where am I going wrong here? How was I meant to get to D as the answer?

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like you were thinking about supporting Yasukawa’s claims here, nicizle, instead of drawing an inference based on the author's argument. The author wants us to believe that size is probably NOT an indicator of survival. In other words, being smaller doesn't help you live longer. It just means that you're younger, so when you're smaller you have a longer remaining lifespan.

Answer C is the opposite of that claim. The author apparently thinks that older birds have a lower chance of surviving than younger ones, but answer C is saying that there is no difference based on age, and that equal size means equal chance of survival.

[georgetteknowsbest]

Can someone please explain to me why the answer is C and not D.
The conclusion of the stimulus is that Yasukwawa is probably wrong. Therefore, we should be looking for an answer choice that shows this.

Why is C wrong and D right?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Georgette!

Let's break down our stimulus:

Premise 1: Yasukawa's month long study of blackbirds shows that the percentage of smaller birds that survived the duration of the study was higher than the percentage of larger birds that survived the duration of the study

Premise 2: Yasukawa concluded that size is a determinant of a blackbird's chance of survival over a month long period

Conclusion: Yasukawa's conclusion is mistaken, because the smaller blackbirds were younger than the larger blackbirds

Our answer choice needs to be an inference that is supported by the statements in the stimulus. So, what does our stimulus tell us? Yasukawa's conclusion that size is a determinant of survivability is probably wrong, because the smaller blackbirds tended to be younger, and the larger blackbirds tended to be older. Let's try to prephrase an answer-- what can we infer from this?

If the larger blackbirds tend to be older, it may be the case that a smaller percentage of the larger blackbirds survived the study because they were dying of old age, rather than anything having to do with their size. So, we can likely infer that size is not the contributing factor to the observed difference in survival between the younger and older blackbirds.

Now, let's look at Answer Choice D, the correct answer: "among blackbirds of the same age, a difference in size may not indicate a difference in chances of survival over a month long period."

This gives us exactly what we need! Since there is a correlation between age and size, it could be true that age is the determining factor in survivability, and size does not have anything to do with it. Answer Choice D makes this exact inference, that if blackbirds are the same age but differ in size, their size alone may not impact their chances of survival.

Answer Choice C actually points to Yasukawa's conclusion being correct: "among blackbirds of the same size, a difference in age probably does not indicate a difference in chances of survival over a one month period."

We have two factors to consider when we are accounting for the survival of blackbirds: age, and size. Yasukawa believes that size is the contributing factor to the birds' survival. Therefore, ruling out age as a contributing factor would actually strengthen Yasukawa's conclusion.

I hope this helps!