#25 - George: A well-known educator claims that children who

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

First off, in order to answer this question, we need only look to George's argument. Ursula's response does nothing to assist our ability to answer this question. The problem with George's argument is that he uses two specific, individual examples to refute the educator's claim that children who are read to are more likely to enjoy reading when they grow up. Had the educator stated that every child who is read to will enjoy reading as an adult, while those who weren't will not, then his argument might hold a little more water. As it stands, George is making an overgeneralization based upon the experiences of him and his cousin.

Answer Choice (A) While this answer sounds tempting, it is not what the problem is here. George is not comparing his experiences to those of anybody else. He is simply using his experiences to try to refute the educator's claim, which may or may not be based on the actual experiences of others.

Answer Choice (B) There is no reason George needs to distinguish between quantity and quality, as the educator who made the claim does not distinguish between them.

Answer Choice (C) This answer choice has nothing to do with the stimulus argument and should be quickly dismissed. George simply brings up the idea of relaxing reading to demonstrate that he enjoys reading as an adult despite the fact that he was not read to as a child.

Answer Choice (D) There is no need for George to establish that the educators claim accurately reflects the position held by the majority of educators. All George is trying to do is refute the claim of this one educator. What other educators believe is irrelevant to his argument.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The educator's claim is that children who are read to when they are young are more likely to enjoy reading when they grow up than children who are not read to. Since the claim deals with probabilities, a single case — or several, for that matter — cannot refute the claim.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I find Question 24 in the Flawed Reasoning Section to be problematic. I recognize why E is right, but not why A is wrong. A says that George gives more weight to his experiences than the experiences of others to refute educators claim that children who are read to will more likely become avid readers. George is refuting this claim by his own experience. For him to think this is valid, wouldn't he have to give more weight to his own experience than the experiences of others which the educator must use to have a claim? Must it explicitly say that he is comparing his experience to someone else. It doesn't seem a stretch to know that George is comparing himself to the evidence in the educators claim which one would think is based on the experiences of others. Thank you.

- Micah

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Micah,

You ask a good question here, because at a glance, it's clear that George believes his and his family member's experience have weight. The question is, does he think those as if they have more weight than the experience of others? This is the part I'd say does not occur, so let's look more closely at it.

First, is the educator using the experiences of other people to make his or her claim? I'd say so, and so I don't see that as part of the objection to this answer choice. Second, you asked, "wouldn't he [George] have to give more weight to his own experience than the experiences of others?" I think that's the key question here, and I see George objecting to an educator's claim by citing his own experience, but not necessarily saying that his experiences have more weight. There's nothing suggesting that he values his experience above that of others, but instead that he simply values his experience as valid. That's a fine line to be sure, but it is the key here because "more weight" is tough to prove.

The real flaw is that George heard the claim not as a "likely" claim, but as an "always" claim. That is, George thought that what he heard was: "children who are read to when they are very young always enjoy reading more when they grow up than are children who were not read to." When an absolute claim like this is made, citing a single valid counterexample does effectively refute the claim. So, his citation of his own experiences doesn't outweigh or prove that the experiences of others are invalid, but it does attempt to attack the educator's statement.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[mpoulson]

This was a great explanation. I am still learning not to assume things that the text doesn't infer. I also work overseas so the discussion board really helps me. Thank you.

- Micah

[Tony_Stark]

To add to E: the reasoning from the stimulus "children who are read to when they are very young are more likely to enjoy reading when they grow up..."

His counter example is that his cousin "seldom reads for pleasure." This could still mean that he enjoys reading, he just doesn't read very often.

[Dave Killoran]

To add to E: the reasoning from the stimulus "children who are read to when they are very young are more likely to enjoy reading when they grow up..."

His counter example is that his cousin "seldom reads for pleasure." This could still mean that he enjoys reading, he just doesn't read very often.

Exactly. This is where that "likely" makes all the difference to the problem, since the counterexample then is non-indicative. The trouble comes for many students because in the real world, this is often how people talk. They'll say something like "I'm totally not going" but then show up anyway, or "I'll most likely be there" but then not show up. When talking with our friends, we understand the context of these statements, and can hear inflection, etc, which informs our opinion. But the LSAT doesn't work that way, so you have to read it in literal form, and that's not something most people do every day.

Thanks!

[niki]

Hi,

could a possible other flaw be that this is a conditional relationship; ie: read to when young -> grow up liking reading, and George assumes this is a causal flaw? being read to when young CAUSES you to grow up liking reading, or perhaps that George makes a mistaken negation; ie: if you're NOT read to when young -> you won't grow up to like reading.

these kind of questions tend to be slightly more challenging for me because I get confused with the conditional/causal aspect of it.

Thanks

[Francis O'Rourke]

hi niki,

It does not look like George necessarily infers a causal connection. He says that the claim is false and provides evidence that directly conforms to the claim: his cousin was read to as a child and does read for pleasure. Make sure that you understand the basics of the argument before you investigate possible causality.

There is clearly a correlation involved in the educator's claim, but we do not know from the stimulus if the educator or George considers the correlation to be causal.

[elizabeth]

Hi Powerscore,

For answer choice E, what does "although the claim is consistent with the occurrence of such cases" refer to? I'm not actually sure what it means. Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi Elizabeth,

That phrase is referring to the idea that exceptions to the general rule might exist. Here, the fact that children "are more likely" to enjoy reading if they are read to means this is a general trend/correlation, potentially a cause-and-effect relationship, as opposed to a 1:1, certain, conditional relationship ("if read to, will enjoy reading"), meaning it accounts for the fact that exceptions to this general rule may exist, making George's argument flawed--it overgeneralizes based on only two special cases.

Hope this helps!