#15 - Candidate: In each election in the last ten years, the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning, CE. The correct answer choice is (D).

The candidate used information about a strong correlation in one part of their district, one that has held steady for 10 years. Voters there, and nowhere else, seem to vote overwhelmingly for the candidates who favor property tax reform. In the rest of the district, there is no correlation between that issue and how people vote - not a positive one and not a negative one either. From this data the author concludes that favoring property tax reform will get them more votes in that area without losing them votes elsewhere.

The problem is that the argument presumes the correlation indicates a causal relationship, when of course correlation never proves causation. There could be other explanations for that correlation. Prephrase the answer to this Flaw in the Reasoning question with "it's a causal flaw" and you will have no trouble selecting the correct answer!

Answer choice (A): There is no reason to believe that the candidate would not do what they say, and even if they did not follow through on their campaign promises the argument is only about what would get them more votes. This is not a relevant issue and so is not a flaw.

Answer choice (B): The argument did not draw opposite conclusions, but drew a single, consistent conclusion that taking this position would increase votes in one area without alienating voters elsewhere.

Answer choice (C): Be careful, this is a trap answer! The argument drew a conclusion about the voters of the district based on data about the voters of the district, including data about "a significant majority" in one area and no discernable pattern everywhere else. That is entirely representative of the district, and so it is not too small a sample!

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As described above, the flaw here is causal. There could be some other cause for the voters in the northeastern part of the district voting the way they did, and the author should have considered other possible causes rather than assuming a causal relationship based only on a correlation.

Answer choice (E): This answer is not true. The data is not 10 years old, but is current data about each of the last 10 years.

[kylienoel]

I chose C because the candidate based their conclusion on data from the northeastern part of their district and what I perceived as a lack of data in the rest of their district, so I thought it was a small sample flaw. Can you help me understand why this is a causation flaw?

[Adam Tyson]

Sure thing, kylienoel! The reason the sample group is not a problem is because the candidate drew a conclusion only about the group that was sampled (the voters in the northeastern part of the district) and not one that was too broad. If the candidate had used data about that part of the district only and had then drawn a conclusion about the entire district, then we would be looking at an unrepresentative sample group, but that's not what this author did.

Also, note that the group sampled included "a significant majority" of that group, which suggests that the group was not so small as to be unrepresentative. If you have data about a significant majority of a group, and you use that data to draw a conclusion that is just about that group and not about anyone else, you're on pretty safe ground from a data perspective!

[lsatstudying11]

Hello!

I am wondering why the flawed reasoning here is considered a causal issue instead of a conditional one? The language of 'all I need to do' made my mind instantly think this was a conditional issue having to do with maybe confusing necessary and sufficient. Thanks!!

[Adam Tyson]

There is an interesting combination of conditional and causal language here, studying, so you're not wrong to look into that! "All I need" certainly screams of conditional reasoning (and might set up a biconditional relationship), as does "in order to."

But what turns this into a causal argument is the very active term "attract". This is an argument about attracting voters, which means causing them to vote for you. When causal and conditional language intersect in this way, the more powerful, active nature of the causal reasoning (as compared to the more passive voice found in conditional relationships) takes over. The author is doing more than saying "if I take this position, then more people will vote for me." They are saying "taking this position will cause them to vote for me" or "it will sway them." Looked at in that light, "the only thing I need" becomes "there is only one thing required to bring about that effect."

Watch out for more arguments in the future that mash up causal and conditional ideas like this! This seems to be a growing trend in LSAC's attempt to ramp up the challenge and confound those of us who have been teaching and studying the more straightforward conditional and causal strategies for years.