#15 - A popular book argues that people who are successful

[EmilyC]

When I read this question I felt like I had a good understanding of the stimulus, and when I went to the answer choices I stalled out so I ended up skipping the question and ran out of time to do anything other than blindly guess in the last few seconds of the section.

I was under the impression that answer choice A, specifically the language it uses, while I know it points to conditional reason error, specifically was a reference to a mistaken reversal flaw. "Mistakes something required for the claim that it is sufficient"...doesn't that directly mirror the language used to describe mistaken reversal flaws? Page 7-8 in Lesson 7 of the powerscore course?

None of the answer choices seemed right, and there wasn't a mistaken reversal flaw in the stimulus so I was lost.

If I had more time to look back and think about it I might have guessed A since it's the only conditional flaw answer, but I still can't see why it's truly correct. I appreciate any advice or explanation!

[Zach Foreman]

Emily,
I think Rachael's explanation above is perfect. There is a reversal flaw but it is hidden.

"The book says Success Luck but actually success Hard Work. Therefore the book is wrong."
Well, just because success requires hard work doesn't mean that it also requires lots of luck. So, we must assume that not only is hard work necessary for success but that it is also sufficient for success. And if that were true, THEN the book's argument would be false.

1. HW Success
therefore
2. Success Luck
therefore
3. book's argument is ridiculous

You can see that he supported half of the argument in line 1 (that success hardwork) but failed to support the idea that hardworking success. He just assumed it, which is a mistaken reversal.

[The Stig]

So I understand that test takers can quickly derive that A is correct by process of elimination because it is the only answer choice that describes a conditional reasoning error. But I want to make sure that I structurally understand the flaw that's happening here.

Stimulus Diagram - structural indicators in bold
Premise 1
Sentence: "A popular book argues that people who are successful in business have, without exception, benefited from a lot of luck on their way to success"
Diagram: S (Successful) BLL (Benefited from a Lot of Luck)

Premise 2:
Sentence: "Anyone who has studied successful people knows that success requires a lot of hard work."
Diagram: S LHW (Lots of Hard Work)

Conclusion:
Sentence: "But this is ridiculous"
Diagram: S BLL

Explanation
Powerscore Staff explain that answer choice A is correct because in order for Premise 2 to successfully refute Premise 1, the author of the stimulus must incorrectly reverse Premise 1. So the author's misinterpretation would be diagramed as:

P1: BLL S
P2: S LHW
C: S BLL

Questions
1. How does Premise 2 now refute the incorrectly reversed argument in Premise 1?
2. Couldn't the incorrect reversal of Premise 1 and Premise 2 be chained together to create the valid conclusion BLL S LHW?

I'm certain that I am missing something here, but I have no idea where I'm going wrong. My hunch is that I am either misinterpreting the explanation, or incorrectly diagramming one of the premises. Any and all advice and analysis would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Stig,

Part of the problem you're having with the diagramming here is that, while your diagrams themselves might not suggest that the second premise attacks the reversal of the popular book's argument, there is another aspect to this stimulus (it's actually another flaw) that has to become a part of your diagram.

The author here assumes (without evidence) that benefiting from luck and a lot of hard work are mutually exclusive. Diagramming with that in mind, the author assumes (wrongly, reversely) that the popular book is arguing benefiting from luck (while NOT working hard) is sufficient for success. The author thinks the premise that success requires a lot of hard work attacks this, and the premise would attack that claim IF it were true that benefiting from luck were incompatible with lots of hard work.

So there are really two flaws here--the reversal that answer choice A describes, plus the inappropriate assumption that benefiting from luck is incompatible with a lot of hard work. The correct answer on a flaw question doesn't have to describe every flaw, but it does have to describe something that is flawed. Answer choice A does that.

I hope this helps!

[LawSchoolDream]

Hi!

Is this a Method of reasoning question?
I identified the conclusion as such - Success requires hardwork and not luck... is this correct?

Also, when an ans choice says "takes for granted", could you please provide an example of what that would look like?

I assume "claim" means conclusion?

[LawSchoolDream]

You are correct about what your X and Y stand for, 15v - good job. What you seem to have missed is that the argument is about disproving a certain claim, the claim made by the popular book that successful people have had good luck. The author says that claim is incorrect because success requires hard work. The author's error is in thinking that the book was claiming that luck was the only thing needed to prove success - that is was sufficient - when in fact the book was only saying that success is sufficient to prove that there was some luck along the way, that luck is necessary.

Exactly what "the claim" as used in answer A is referring to can be found within the answer choice: the claim that something is required (that's talking about luck being necessary) is confused for that claim that that thing (luck) is sufficient.

Looked at another way, and you can see that the stimulus has conditional reasoning, indicated by the word "requires" and the phrase "people who". Since conditional reasoning is present, and the stem tells you that a flaw is present, look for the only answer that describes a conditional flaw. No need to dig deeper than that - there is only one answer that addresses conditionality, so that must be it. Any deeper analysis is just looking for trouble!

Can a stimulus contain BOTH conditional and CAUSAL reasoning?
Can they contain Causal and Correlation together?

[Dana D]

Hey Lawschooldream,

Conditional reasoning indicates the logical relationship between two things (A B). Causational reasoning is a stricter form of this, saying that A actually causes B, but it's represented the same way (A B).

This is a flaw question, asking you to identify what the flaw in the author's argument is.

"The claim" is referring to a sentence within the stimulus that the author is asserting as truth. For example, in this question, saying that all successful people have experienced luck is a claim - the author is presenting that as a true fact and a premise for their arguement.

When an answer choice says the stimulus has "taken something for granted" it means the author has assumed something. So answer choice (C) is saying the author is flawed because they assume their premise is true and then use that premise to prove their conclusion - this is the LSAT way of saying there was circular logic used, which is not the case here.

[lemonade42]

Hi I just want to check to see if I'm understanding (A) correctly.

So the book says success requires luck. But author says that's incorrect because success requires hard work. The author is mistakenly thinking that the book said luck is sufficient for success. Therefore, in that case, he continues to mistakenly think that oh since luck can automatically lead to success, success wouldn't need/require hard work ever. So he mistakenly then thinks that his premise that says success does indeed require hard work is attacking that thought.

But can't you also say that the author is mistakenly assuming that hard work is sufficient for success even though he said it was just necessary for success? So because he is assuming hard work is sufficient for success, then that would mean luck wouldn't have to be involved. Thus, allowing him to claim that success doesn't require luck because it can easily be established already by hard work sufficiently.

[Dana D]

Hey Lemonade,

Your last paragraph is correct - the author is assuming HW S (hard work --> success). However, the relationship is actually S HW. If you have success, you must also have hard work. The author mistakes HW as being sufficient for achieving success (this is another way of saying they mistakenly think HW S ).