LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5539
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#97234
Here's what we said in the official explanation about answer C, Puppy:
Answer choice (C): If a fifth of those polled were not aware of the ethics violation accusations, that
means that four fifths of those surveyed were aware. This does not resolve the paradox, which is that
Walker’s poll numbers have not dropped despite the accusations.
The paradox is that despite the alleged ethics violations, the Mayor's support remains the same as it was beforehand. The Mayor has not lost any supporters, even though almost half of the city thinks they did something wrong. Answer C does nothing to help explain why their support did not drop, but only why a subset of the supporters were not affected by the news (they never heard the news). What about the rest of the supporters who did hear about the violations? Only answer A helps - it tells us that the supporters simply don't believe the accusations.
User avatar
 Dancingbambarina
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: Mar 30, 2024
|
#112374
Surely E would prove that the poll numbers didn't decrease because he defended himself. Surely E should be taken seriously on the grounds that the voters can blame the staff and still vote for him because it wouldn't be his fault?

Thank you
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 6039
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#112376
Dancingbambarina wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 4:04 am Surely E would prove that the poll numbers didn't decrease because he defended himself. Surely E should be taken seriously on the grounds that the voters can blame the staff and still vote for him because it wouldn't be his fault?

Thank you

I'd say that here you've fallen into a variant of the Natural Question Error: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-l ... ion-error/.

We see that a politician is associated with ethics violations, and of course one question that comes up is whether the person is guilty. Answer choice (E)--well-placed at the end--comes in and suggests that hey, these were just honest errors by staff. That answers the question of guilt, which would seem to help. The problem is, it doesn't matter. We are trying to find out why poll numbers didn't change, and the stimulus makes it clear that "almost half of the city’s residents believe that Mayor Walker is guilty of ethics violations" [italics added]. So the explanation is irrelevant because those people believe Walker is guilty despite any explanation. Once you see that, it tells you that the explanation in (E) isn't giving any lens into why the numbers didn't change before and after the accusations.

It's an attractive wrong answer choice, but as always, since you know it is wrong, study why LSAC is saying it's wrong.

Thanks!
User avatar
 teddykim100
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Jan 10, 2022
|
#113521
To anyone confused about (E) I have some insight -

Mayor Walker defends himself from the accusations, which is not the same as conceding to or admitting, but justifying his actions, which is what I think most of us who picked (E) conflated it to be.


If he admits to his guilt then that might open the door to the pollsters simultaneously acknowledging his guilty, while also believing he's still a good mayor. But E isn't saying that - E is saying he's defending himself, which would be very different from conceding or admitting guilt.

With a defense, we can't really say whether the public would be sympathetic to him like they would be if he just admitted things. And to be clear, him admitting guilt doesn't really move the needle either; we would have to see clearly how his admission connects to any approval rating. But hopefully you can see how conflating the idea of defending vs. admitting touches upon the misunderstanding here.

So E is a trap answer based on our degree of understanding
User avatar
 Dana D
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: Feb 06, 2024
|
#113545
Hey Teddy,

I would push back a little here to reiterate with Dave said in his earlier explaination -almost half of the voters believe the Mayor is guilty, regardless of whether this was a result of intentional bad acting or honest mistakes. So we still have to answer the question of why 52% of voters think he's great? The way to actually resolve this paradox is to recognize that there could be two totally distinct parties here - a group that thinks he's guilty and even before this thought he was doing a poor job (48% of voters) and a group that thinks he's doing great (52%).

Hope that helps!
User avatar
 Dancingbambarina
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: Mar 30, 2024
|
#114029
Dave Killoran wrote: Sun Mar 23, 2025 12:27 pm
Dancingbambarina wrote: Sat Mar 22, 2025 4:04 am Surely E would prove that the poll numbers didn't decrease because he defended himself. Surely E should be taken seriously on the grounds that the voters can blame the staff and still vote for him because it wouldn't be his fault?

Thank you

I'd say that here you've fallen into a variant of the Natural Question Error: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-l ... ion-error/.

We see that a politician is associated with ethics violations, and of course one question that comes up is whether the person is guilty. Answer choice (E)--well-placed at the end--comes in and suggests that hey, these were just honest errors by staff. That answers the question of guilt, which would seem to help. The problem is, it doesn't matter. We are trying to find out why poll numbers didn't change, and the stimulus makes it clear that "almost half of the city’s residents believe that Mayor Walker is guilty of ethics violations" [italics added]. So the explanation is irrelevant because those people believe Walker is guilty despite any explanation. Once you see that, it tells you that the explanation in (E) isn't giving any lens into why the numbers didn't change before and after the accusations.

It's an attractive wrong answer choice, but as always, since you know it is wrong, study why LSAC is saying it's wrong.

Thanks!
Thank you so much for your help.

Please may you send another link of this site or briefly expound on this error as the site is just not working still.

Than you so much.
User avatar
 Dana D
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: Feb 06, 2024
|
#114096
Hey Dancing,

A summary of the blog post from https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-l ... ion-error/

A summary of this question, known as Debbie’s Magic Act, is as follows:

Debbie has a magic act where she identifies a card chosen randomly from a deck, without ever looking at the card beforehand. A skeptic examined the process, and conducted three separate tests. In the first test, he made a video of her selecting the correct card, and after examining it he determined she did not perform sleight-of-hand. For the second test he gave her his own deck of cards and she again succeeded, so the skeptic concluded it wasn’t a stacked deck. In the third test, the skeptic selected the card on his own, and on that basis ruled out the possibility that a plant in the audience had been used.

On the basis of these three tests, the skeptic concludes that none of the three methods—sleight-of-hand, stacked deck, or planted volunteer—had been used by Debbie to perform the magic trick. A Flaw in the Reasoning question then follows this stimulus.

A Common Wrong Answer
The reason this question interests me is that a large number of students select the same incorrect answer, and are very confident they are correct even after reading the problem again. Even after looking at the right answer these students often do not necessarily understand where things went awry with the answer they chose. It’s a tricky question! The trap used to create this confusion is one I sometimes refer to as the Natural Question Error, and the makers of the LSAT have preyed upon it in many Logical Reasoning questions. It’s a type of Shell Game error, and if you study for the LSAT long enough, you will at some point make the very same mistake. So let’s break this problem down and see how we can avoid this error.

The correct answer to the problem is (A), which states that the skeptic did not consider that Debbie might have used a different method for each test. If that was the case, she could have used a stacked deck or audience plant for the first video test, then an audience plant or sleight-of hand for the second test, and then a stacked deck or sleight-of-hand for the third test. In other words, each test rules out just one possibility for that test only; if Debbie was changing methods, then she could easily have used several of the methods over the course of the three tests, which would make the conclusion flawed. Note that answer choice (A) is a bit tricky and unexpected, and placing this answer first ensures that many students will somewhat gloss over it.

The Trap Answer
The attractive incorrect answer I want to explore is answer choice (D), which states that the skeptic forgot to consider other methods besides the three mentioned in the stimulus. Around 27% of students select this answer, which means 1 out of every 4 test takers sees this answer as correct. Why is this answer so attractive? This is where the trap of the natural question comes in: when you read the stimulus, your first reaction is not to evaluate the various methods that didn’t seem to work, but to instead wonder, “How did Debbie do it?”

It’s the most natural and common question to ask, and virtually everyone who does this problem thinks about it for at least a second. Answer choice (D) plays right into this by suggesting that there’s another method that Debbie used that should have been considered. So why is (D) wrong? Because that question, although natural, is also irrelevant. The stimulus wasn’t about other methods, but instead ruled out three specific methods. The skeptic wasn’t obligated to research all the possible methods that Debbie used, just the three that the skeptic said weren’t used. So, in this case, the natural question leads us right into a trap like answer choice (D).

How To Avoid?
How do we avoid this trap, then? By focusing very carefully on the wording of the conclusion. The conclusion states, “The skeptic concluded that Debbie uses neither sleight of hand, nor a trick deck, nor a planted “volunteer” to achieve her effect.” The wording is very specifically limited to eliminating the three methods. Note that it doesn’t say, “The skeptic concluded that she did not use magic to achieve her effect.” If the conclusion said that, then (D) would be much more attractive. So, the way around the Natural Question Trap is to know the specifics of the conclusion, and not allow yourself to go beyond what was said.

If you’d like another example of this error from a source you probably have in your possession, take a look at the LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible, in the Weaken chapter. The second question in the text is the Beverage Company Director question, and many students miss this problem because they ask the natural question of whether the new plastic rings will cause other issues, and end up picking answer choice (E). But, as explained in the book, that answer doesn’t match the conclusion, and hence that answer is incorrect.

Know The Details!
Identifying the conclusion in each Logical Reasoning problem is critical, and by looking at questions such as the two discussed above, you can see how the test makers set traps for the unsuspecting reader. Always make sure you know the details of the conclusion of each argument, and that you know exactly what it says. That will protect you from falling into one of the most insidious answer traps on the LSAT.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.