#11- Polls have shown that a higher percentage of graduating

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D). In this case, we have a causal conclusion, wherein the author states that the cause of the difference in attitude is receiving a university education, meaning that the education is having an effect. In very rough terms, it looks like this:

• Cause Effect
  
  Higher %
  university education in favor of
  services

Aside from the clear error of concluding a causal relationship exists, the group comparisons that are used to get to that conclusion are problematic. For one, very subtly the argument goes from "graduating university students" to "people with a university education," and those two groups aren't the same. And also in the conclusion, the argument begins talking about "members of the overall population," which had not appeared before.

Also notable is how the test makers change the language regarding the attitude towards social service. The first premise uses "against proposals to reduce government social services" and then the conclusion uses "more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services." Similar ideas, but that language shift sets up students to possibly miss the language in (C), which is "in favor of reducing government social services," and is opposite of the idea discussed in the stimulus

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This answer actually strengthens the argument if anything, but it can be easy to miss that at first. Note how the conclusion stated, "more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services" whereas this answer states "in favor of reducing government social services." So, again, the test makers shifted the language in a subtle fashion and force the reader to realize that they have done so. In this case if college graduate retirees favor keeping government services moreso than non-college graduate retirees, this agrees with and supports the conclusion that people with a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The answer states that university graduates who have been out of school for 5 or more years area actually for reducing social services as compared to the general population. This is opposite of the idea in the conclusion, and thus this weakens the argument.


Answer choice (E):This can be an attractive answer at first because the strength of opinion factor suggests to some people that the polling didn't completely capture attitudes and opinions fully or correctly. But the argument never references the concept of strength, just the general opinion, and we do know what those opinions were. Thus, for this answer to work, we'd need a lot more information otherwise you are making assumptions.

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

[maximbasu]

Hi,

I chose E while the correct ANS was D.

The stimulus states:
1. Grad students (unassumingly because they're broke + have no job) hate the idea of reducing govt social programs
2. First-year students (only partying is on their mind. . . They don't see their GPAs crumbling as a result of not studying for the LSAT with Powerscore) are not as against less social programs
3. Conclusion: People with a university education (aka Grad students) love social programs more than the "overall population"

Alarm bells: You can't equate first-year students with the "overall population."

My reasoning for E: If grad students were more likely to express "strong opinions," then if they hated the reduction idea, they'd state it + if first-year students didn't like it, they'd say that more mildly or not state that at all. Therefore, the poll did NOT capture the true nature of the opinions. Just because grad students are more adept at arguing + complaining doesn't mean that first-years are not totally in love with the idea of social programs.

Is E wrong because I'm assuming too much? A "strong" and a "mild" negative opinion is still a negative opinion, and there's no evidence that if a first-year student hated the reduction idea, he'd not state it.

Is D correct because if there is a lower % of grad students who love the reduction idea now than 5 years ago, then their overall trend is hating the program, which is similar to the trend of the overall population.

MB

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I chose E while the correct ANS was D.

The stimulus states:
1. Grad students (unassumingly because they're broke + have no job) hate the idea of reducing govt social programs
2. First-year students (only partying is on their mind. . . They don't see their GPAs crumbling as a result of not studying for the LSAT with Powerscore) are not as against less social programs
3. Conclusion: People with a university education (aka Grad students) love social programs more than the "overall population"

Alarm bells: You can't equate first-year students with the "overall population."

My reasoning for E: If grad students were more likely to express "strong opinions," then if they hated the reduction idea, they'd state it + if first-year students didn't like it, they'd say that more mildly or not state that at all. Therefore, the poll did NOT capture the true nature of the opinions. Just because grad students are more adept at arguing + complaining doesn't mean that first-years are not totally in love with the idea of social programs.

Is E wrong because I'm assuming too much? A "strong" and a "mild" negative opinion is still a negative opinion, and there's no evidence that if a first-year student hated the reduction idea, he'd not state it.

Is D correct because if there is a lower % of grad students who love the reduction idea now than 5 years ago, then their overall trend is hating the program, which is similar to the trend of the overall population.

MB

Hello MB,

For answer E, opinions being "strong" or not strong may not make a difference. Any opinion might be important: if you vote for someone this November, it may not matter if you're "strongly" for them or just "weakly", as long as you selected them on the ballot.
For answer D, there may indeed be a general trend among university graduates for hating social services, although there may be an exception for recent graduates.

Hope this helps,
David

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi, I'm not sure why C does not work...
It kind of shows the opposite of what the argument says, isn't it?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

Thanks for the question! I'm going to start by recapping the main issue with the argument. In this case, we have a causal conclusion, wherein the author states that the cause of the difference in attitude is receiving a university education, meaning that the education is having an effect. In very rough terms, it looks like this:

• Cause Effect
  
  Higher %
  university education in favor of
  services

Aside from the clear error of concluding a causal relationship exists, the group comparisons that are used to get to that conclusion are problematic. For one, very subtly the argument goes from "graduating university students" to "people with a university education," and those two groups aren't the same. And also in the conclusion, the argument begins talking about "members of the overall population," which had not appeared before.

Also notable is how the test makers change the language regarding the attitude towards social service. The first premise uses "against proposals to reduce government social services" and then the conclusion uses "more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services." Similar ideas, but that language shift sets up students to possibly miss the language in (C), which is "in favor of reducing government social services," and is opposite of the idea discussed in the stimulus

Answer choice (C): This answer actually strengthens the argument if anything, but it can be easy to miss that at first. Note how the conclusion stated, "more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services" whereas this answer states "in favor of reducing government social services." So, again, the test makers shifted the language in a subtle fashion and force the reader to realize that they have done so. In this case if college graduate retirees favor keeping government services moreso than non-college graduate retirees, this agrees with and supports the conclusion that people with a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. The answer states that university graduates who have been out of school for 5 or more years area actually for reducing social services as compared to the general population. This is opposite of the idea in the conclusion, and thus this weakens the argument.

Answer choice (E): This can be an attractive answer at first because the strength of opinion factor suggests to some people that the polling didn't completely capture attitudes and opinions fully or correctly. But the argument never references the concept of strength, just the general opinion, and we do know what those opinions were. Thus, for this answer to work, we'd need a lot more information otherwise you are making assumptions.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi, Dave, thank you for the throughout explanation!
I just want to double check...so just by showing there is an example which goes against what the argument's conclusion suggests, it can weaken the argument right? (just one example is enough to weaken something) because the purpose is not to disprove the argument...
And it mentions "more than 5 yrs before polled" to show they have the degree (education) right? (bc in the conclusion it is talking about ppl with education)
The poll in the argument and D are the same poll, right?

Thank you in advance!

Hi mokkyukkyu,

Thanks for the question! I'm going to start by recapping the main issue with the argument. In this case, we have a causal conclusion, wherein the author states that the cause of the difference in attitude is receiving a university education, meaning that the education is having an effect. In very rough terms, it looks like this:

• Cause Effect
  
  Higher %
  university education in favor of
  services

Aside from the clear error of concluding a causal relationship exists, there group comparisons that are used to get to that conclusion are problematic. For one, very subtly the argument goes from "graduating university students" to "people with a university education," and those two groups aren't the same. And also in the conclusion, the argument begins talking about "members of the overall population," which had not appeared before.

Also notable is how the test makers change the language regarding the attitude towards social service. The first premise uses "against proposals to reduce government social services" and then the conclusion uses "more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services." Similar ideas, but that language shift sets up students to possibly miss the language in (C), which is "in favor of reducing government social services," and is opposite of the idea discussed in the stimulus

Answer choice (C): This answer actually strengthens the argument if anything, but it can be easy to miss that at first. Note how the conclusion stated, "more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services" whereas this answer states "in favor of reducing government social services." So, again, the test makers shifted the language in a subtle fashion and force the reader to realize that they have done so. In this case if college graduate retirees favor keeping government services moreso than non-college graduate retirees, this agrees with and supports the conclusion that people with a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. The answer states that university graduates who have been out of school for 5 or more years area actually for reducing social services as compared to the general population. This is opposite of the idea in the conclusion, and thus this weakens the argument.

Answer choice (E): This can be an attractive answer at first because the strength of opinion factor suggests to some people that the polling didn't completely capture attitudes and opinions fully or correctly. But the argument never references the concept of strength, just the general opinion, and we do know what those opinions were. Thus, for this answer to work, we'd need a lot more information otherwise you are making assumptions.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi, Dave, thank you for the throughout explanation!
I just want to double check...so just by showing there is an example which goes against what the argument's conclusion suggests, it can weaken the argument right? (just one example is enough to weaken something) because the purpose is not to disprove the argument...

Speaking in general for a moment, the use of examples and their effect depends on the nature of the conclusion that was made. If the conclusion is absolute, then a single counterexample will weaken it. For example, if a conclusion states that "To become wealthy you must work hard," then a single counterexample undermines that assertion (because it disproves the "must" aspect"). On the other hand, if the conclusion is less certain, such as "Some students who study for 10 hours a week get a straight As," then a single counterexample doesn't weaken the argument because the author has allowed for that possibility in the way the conclusion was worded.

In this problem, this isn't a classic counterexample but rather a statement that is counter to the assertion in the conclusion. The author says people with a university education have a certain trait, and (D) says that at least some of them do not.

And it mentions "more than 5 yrs before polled" to show they have the degree (education) right? (bc in the conclusion it is talking about ppl with education)!

No, the degree aspect is covered by the "graduated from a university" portion. The "five years" element is just a way for them to reference a group that has a different view. They could have used any time frame (10 years, 15 years, etc) and achieved the same effect.

The poll in the argument and D are the same poll, right?

It does not have to be the same poll. The makers of the LSAT believe that when conducted properly, polls are accurate, so there's no need for this to be the same exact poll.

Thanks!

[actionjackson]

Hello Powerscore,
I'm a little confused by the wording of answer choice D for this question, even after reading Dave's explanation. I ultimately chose answer choice D after have narrowed down my options to answer choices D and B. Where D states "Polls of those who graduated...more than five years before being polled" is what confused me specifically. What group of people is this answer choice talking about? The wording of this answer seems to me as referencing the, "students entering their first year". I ultimately didn't choose B because it appeared to me as a strengthener, but still I believe I wasted an inordinate amount of time attempting to determine what D was saying. What group D is referencing by mentioning, "polls of those who graduated...more than five years before being polled", do these pollsters have a time machine?
And as always, thank you for the assistance Powerscore.

[Steven Palmer]

Hi actionjackson,

I totally understand what you're saying, this is a very weirdly worded answer choice. It is not talking about when these people were polled, but rather when they graduated from a university. Another way to say it would be: "Polls taken in 2010 of people who graduated in 2005 show a higher percentage of people in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of the overall population."

In other words, this means that while more people may be against reducing social services right after they graduate, they become more in favor of reducing social services the older they get.

Hope this helps!
Steven

[Khodi7531]

I was confused on the answer choices of this question...I chose D because it was the only answer that brought up/addressed the "overall population".


Was this a good enough reason? I thought the jump was so significant in the argument that there was no way an answer can't address this.