#17 - Legislator: The recently released crime statistics

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this dialogue, the legislator draws a questionable causal conclusion. Based on the fact that certain areas have experienced a significant decrease in crime, and that those areas are covered by new, more punishing laws, the author asserts that the laws caused the decrease in crime. The author's conclusion can be diagrammed as follows:

• Cause Effect
  
  Laws Decrease in crime rate

As we know, there are several ways to weaken a causal argument. The analyst attacks the legislator's assertion by pointing to an instance wherein the supposed "effect" was present in spite of the lack of supposed "cause." Since other areas without those laws have also experienced a decrease, the analyst questions the legislator's causal argument.

The question stem asks for the analyst's method of reasoning in attacking the legislator's argument. The analyst point to other examples lacking the cause where the effect still took place.

Answer choice (A) This is a common sort of wrong answer choice in LSAT questions like this one. The analyst does not question the validity of the statistics, but rather the legislator's interpretation of those statistics, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B) While this would represent a causal flaw, this is not what happens in this stimulus. The analyst does not argue that both the law change and the crime drop resulted from the same cause, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C) This answer choice is incorrect for reason similar to that of answer choice (A) above. The objection is not to the statistics, but to the legislator's interpretation of those statistics.

Answer choice (D) The analyst raises no objection based on self-interest, so this answer choice is perhaps the most clearly incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This choice describes, in slightly more sophisticated terms, the answer prephrased above: the analyst questions the legislator's causal conclusion based on instances when the supposed effect occurs in the absence of the alleged cause.

[mford]

On page 7-74 of the full course books, question 42's answer E is nicely tucked away at the end, and I was snookered into answer choice B. Had the answer choice been "implying that the legislator has unreasonably concluded that one event has cause another without ruling out the possibility that both events may have a common cause" then I suppose there would have been two answers. This seems to be a very tricky question.

[Dave Killoran]

About 1 out of every 5 students picks (B), so you are looking at an answer that is pretty attractive. I will note that in Method/Flaw arguments containing causality, the correct answer typically uses the word "cause" or "effect" or both, and so that should make (B) and (E) your primary targets when you get into the answer choices, and you'd want to compare them closely.

The analyst uses the classic weakening approach of "no cause, but still the effect occurs," and that is exactly what (E) describes.

Take a look at (B) again--the problem with (B) is that, does the analyst say anything about what causes the new laws? No, and so even slight alterations to this answer won't work. It needed to say that some other cause made the crime drop overall, not that they had a common cause.

Does that make sense?

[mford]

Maybe I'm over-thinking this one, but I don't see how merely referring to the number of times the effect occurred without the cause is a weakness of the legislator's argument. Let us say it is two times. The legislator could respond by stating that these hypothetical occurrences were in the extreme minority. By "how often" are the test makers implying that it could be a majority? I suppose it would have been more clear if they had written "without considering the possibility that in the majority of cases the effect occurred in the absence of the stated cause". Or is it simply that the test makers are hinting at the fact that the legislator's argument is open to the idea that causal relationship is open at all to the idea that it isn't concrete which makes this a weakness.

Also I've noticed a type of trickery the test makers are using in some of their higher level questions such as this one. In this question, my prephrase was something similar to "situation not universally causal, perhaps alt cause" and I used that going into the answer choices. However this is not explicitly stated in the Analyst's criticism. Another question in the Flaw in the reasoning questions, #25 on section 7-87 makes this clearer. It states that Montgomery is a well renowned biologist writing a book about archeology. Obviously there is a disconnect there. I was tricked into going into the answer choices with the idea that it's silly for a biologist to be writing a book about archeology, and there was an answer choice that preyed on my weak prephrase. Any tips on strengthening prephrases to battle against these evil problems?

[Dave Killoran]

Let me address the causality aspect of your question first, then I'll check back later after we (hopefully) clear that up and address the prephrase portion if needed.

Consider what the assumption of causality actually is in any causal argument conclusion: that the cause always produces the effect (this is discussed in the Causal Reasoning portion of the course). So, when the Analyst brings up these other situations that had a similar effect without the cause, it hurts the argument no matter how many times it happened. This is what the Analyst is suggesting: you apparently didn't consider all the instances of the effect occurring, and because these examples counter your conclusion, you've drawn a hasty conclusion.

Note that apparently the number of counterexamples isn't just one or two in the Analyst's response either: he/she states that "many comparable areas" lacked the legislation but had a drop in the crime rate.

This method of attacking causality is used constantly by the test makers, and locking down this concept should make a number of questions "look" easier, and improve your prephrasing.

Please let me know what you think of the above. Thanks!

[mford]

I wanted to get home from work before I really zoned in on your response, and after zoning, I feel that I understand it much better. Thank You!

[mford]

The first step seems to be, find the flawed conclusion; then you think about why it's flawed, then address the weakness of the argument with the answer choice. The answer choice basically says, "Here stimulus I'll tell you where you went wrong", in an objective manner.

[Dave Killoran]

Yes, the question asks you for the method used by the second speaker, so what you are describing is the way that second speaker reasoned.

When you see the causality in the first speaker's argument, you have to expect that some type of response addressing that causality is coming in the second speaker's comment. And, not surprisingly, the second speaker uses one of the five classic methods for weakening causal reasoning. Thereafter, it is a matter of finding the answer that best describes that form of attack.

Thanks!