#23 - Statistical analysis is a common tool for explanation

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (E)

The author of this stimulus makes a leap in logic: Since human mental events cannot be explained with statistical analysis, it cannot be explained with any of the physical sciences. This conclusion is clearly overly broad, and is not justified by the premise provided. The correct answer choice will, most likely, draw a similarly over-broad conclusion.

Answer choice (A): This cannot be the correct answer choice, as the reasoning in this answer is valid. If computer modeling requires predictability, then unpredictable wind-resistance cannot be understood with computer modeling.

Answer choice (B): The flaw here is different from that found in the stimulus. In this case, the argument goes as follows: The psychology of emotion can only be explained in cases involving humans. Since there are other cases that don't involve humans, the psychology of emotion can never be used to explain music's effects on emotional states.

Answer choice (C): The flaw here is also distinctive: the best way to explain why something is a particular color is based on two facets—light and matter. Since information about one of those facets (matter) is sometimes unavailable, there is no relationship between those two and facets and why something is a particular color. This flaw is basically "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." The author is basically asserting that if you cant have all of the information all of the time, then none of the information is pertinent.

Answer choice (D): The flaw here, like those found in the other incorrect answer choices above, is different from that found in the stimulus. Here, the invalid presumption is that because we cannot definitively determine which theory is correct, none of the theories are likely to be correct. This is not valid, of course—a theory that cannot be proven is not necessarily untrue—but this answer choices does not provide the parallel flaw that we seek, so this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The author here draws an unjustified conclusion much like that of the stimulus. Because a narrative is not a good way to explain certain ancient historical events, those events cannot be explained by historical explanation of any sort.

[jared.xu]

I have a question about how to diagram the second sentence of the stimulus. The second sentence reads: "It [statistical analysis] can only be used, however, to explain events that can be replicated to the last detail." I actually diagramed it as "Explain events that can be replicated--> Use statistical analysis." I thought that the words "to explain" is somewhat like "in order to" which is an indicator word of sufficient condition. And I thought that the word "only" before "used" is an indicator word for necessary condition.

Because I misdiagramed, I thought one of the flaws of the argument was mistaken negation. I began looking through answer choices that have both mistaken negation and the unwarranted rejection of an entire large-scale approach. Of course, no answers are like that. And I wasted a lot of time. I would like to know where I made a mistake, what is so special about the second sentence that somehow has sufficient and necessary conditions flipped in relation to the indicator words, and how to avoid this type of mistake in the future. Thank you in advance for replying.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Jared,

The sentence "[Statistical analysis] can only be used...to explain events that can be replicated to the last detail" is indeed conditional, but its proper form is as follows:

Use Statistical Analysis --> Explain Events that can be replicated to the last detail

The author never said that in order to explain such events you must use statistical analysis; rather, statistical analysis can only be used for the purposes of explaining these events.

It is imperative to understand the conditional language underlying the statement at hand, even if the referent of the sufficient/necessary condition indicator is difficult to trace. In this instance, "only" refers to explaining events that can be replicated to the last detail: this is the only use of statistical analysis. Therefore, the explanation of such events is a necessary condition for the use of statistical analysis.

The error in reasoning in this argument has nothing to do with conditional reasoning. The author observes that a common tool for explanation in the physical sciences cannot be employed to explain certain events. From that, she concludes that such events cannot be explained by the physical sciences at all. Her reasoning ignores the possibility that there might be other tools that can adequately explain the events in question.

[LSAT2018]

Is this an error of generalization?

[Claire Horan]

I wouldn't call this the error of overgeneralization. Overgeneralization is when you take a data point or a very small sample size with a particular behavior or result, then draw the conclusion that a larger group shares that behavior or result. For example, I have two black cats. It would be overgeneralizing to conclude something about all cats, or even all my cats (since you don't know how many I have).

I would describe the error in #23 as assuming that one tool available to the physical sciences (statistical analysis) is the only available tool for the physical sciences.

I suppose this could be called an error of overgeneralization, depending on how you choose to frame it. You could characterize the error as assuming that if one of the tools of the physical sciences can't study mental processes, the other available tools also can't study the physical sciences. Framed that way, you could call it an error of overgeneralization. The label isn't as important as recognizing the argument as invalid and spotting similar flawed reasoning in the correct answer choice.

Thanks for the question!

[JocelynL]

Hello,
I got this wrong I chose A.

When I first did this question, I was matching the conclusion. I eliminated all except A.
When I saw the correct answer was E I went back to the stimulus and realized the first premise in answer choice A doesn't match the first premise in the stimulus. A says "is used to TRY to explain" whereas the stimulus sates "is a common tool for explanation"
Is this an accurate way to reason on this one?

Answer choices B & C contain language that is too strong in the first premise. So that would leave D & E. Answer choice D is incorrect because the conclusion is not as strong as the conclusion in the stimulus.

So that leaves us with E as the correct answer.

I've realized that its only after I see what the correct answer is, that I can start to find ways to eliminate the wrong answer. Is there any advice for this ? Please help.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Jocelyn,

Answer choice (A) is wrong because it's valid reasoning. We know (per the question stem) that the reasoning here is flawed, so we need to eliminate answer choice (A) on that alone.

Really, there's no good way to do parallel/parallel flaw questions without reading all five. The key is to know what you are looking for before you start looking at the answer choices, and look at the choices for the specific things you need. For example, you need certain language in the conclusion here, you need a flawed argument, and ideally you want something that says just because one way of doing something won't work, there are no ways to do that thing.

One thing I'd recommend is doing questions untimed. Even if you take a PT timed, before you look at the answers, take it again untimed. Keep both sets of answers, and you can compare how you did timed v untimed. That should help you figure out which areas you need to slow down or change your tactics.

Hope that helps!

[annabelle.swift]

At first, I thought that I could rephrase B to match the Administrator's rephrasing of the stimulus like so:

"Since how music affects the emotional state of a person can't be explained with the psychology of emotion, music's effect on a person's emotional state can't be explained by any other tool (and thus, can't be explained at all)"

However, I thought about it some more and came to the conclusion that perhaps the premise in my rephrasing of B is not valid. How SOME music affects the emotional state of a person CAN be explained by the psychology of emotion. If this premise is not valid, then that would eliminate B as the right answer because the corresponding premise in the stimulus ("No human mental events can be explained by statistical analysis") IS valid. Basically, I tried to Parallel the Premises.

Is my reasoning sound? Thank you!

[Robert Carroll]

annabelle.swift,

A premise cannot be valid or invalid - an argument or conclusion can be. However, you seem to be focusing on the part of the stimulus that says "statistical analysis cannot be employed..." etc. That part is an intermediate conclusion, so the issue of its validity can be explored - and you're right, that part of the stimulus looks good, whereas the corresponding part of answer choice (B) is not.

Robert Carroll

[TSimmons]

Hi all,

I was reading over the other posts and the provided explanation, but I am still unsure why ans choice B is incorrect / E is preferred?

I had some thoughts on why B might be wrong:
1) erroneously translating 'some music' to 'all music' more broadly, which is not the issue in the stimulus.
2) the author finds that there is no other way/ system to explain how music affects emotions outside of psychology of emotion (if it can't be applied)
3) it confuses psychology of emotion's applicable cases as humans as listeners vs composers - that psychology of emotion is concerned w how it affects listeners (humans), regardless of who composes it (computers)

Maybe we can diagram out the conditionalities so it is a little more clear? I know from previous replies that conditionals aren't the focus of this problem, but it might help me digest more if it's at all used.

Maybe we can read some of b as:
psychology of emotion -> explain how music affects the emotional state of a person
psychology of emotion -> applied in cases involving humans
music (computer made) -> cases not involving humans
And the issue is that it disregards the cases where music can be analyzed by PoE?

Things are still a little confusing!
Thanks, Toby