#18 - Asked by researchers to sort objects by shape, most

[KelseyWoods]

Hi spikesjb!

I would agree that "new situations" is not totally equivalent to "new rules." But are they different enough to make any answer choice referring to "new situations" incorrect based on that term alone? I'm not so sure. It would depend on the other answer choices I had available. In some sense, I could argue that any new situation involves new rules. That's what makes new situations somewhat scary--we don't know the rules yet and we kind of have to figure them out. The biggest issue with answer choice (E) is the concept of proportionality. "Proportionality" has a much more specific meaning than "situations." I could maybe see the LSAT equating "new rules" with "new situations" because "situations" is kind of a vague concept and more contextually dependent. But there's nothing in the stimulus that could specifically equate with "proportionality". Therefore, that's ultimately a much stronger reason to eliminate the answer choice.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[spikesjb]

Hey Kelsey,

Thank you for that, the issue with proportionality in that answer choice is definitely the conclusive reason why it's wrong, thank you for you response.

[cornflakes]

I chose B here and can understand the appeal of C, but I'd like further explanation on why it is definitively better than C.

The root of my confusion lies in the fact that this is a "most strongly supported" question - the correct answer does not need to be proven by the stimulus beyond a reasonable doubt due to this reason, it just needs to be the most strongly supported choice in comparison to the others.

The rationale/discussion about why B is wrong seems more geared towards looking at it through a "must be true" lens, which is confusing. I understand the idea of a flaw of composition (assuming a finding from a few parts of a whole extends to the entire whole itself/every part of the whole). Due to this, I can accept that B definitely is not proven by the stimulus beyond a reasonable doubt. The question I have, however, is more along the lines of is B supported AT ALL by the stimulus? Would this answer still be no because it utilizes a flaw of composition? Putting it another way, if we were to start with no knowledge at all about toddler behavior and compare it side by side with the stimulus we are given that includes the information about toddler behavior, wouldn't the latter at least move us closer to accepting the idea that toddler's aren't capable of adapting to new rules? Some examples of something occurring do support the idea that the thing occurs as opposed to no examples correct? Essentially, my question concerns if B is supported AT ALL, and if its more a matter of degree of support differentiation from C, or whether B is not supported AT ALL.

To me, C also has elements that cannot be proven definitively with what we are given. How do we know that obedience is or is not interconnected with cortex development? We have to assume an understanding that makes the two mutually exclusive, and does not allow them to overlap - the cortex development has to be beyond their conscious control, a fact that one may infer, but certainly could not assume without doubt (unless you are a neuroscientist). Since this is a most supported question, however, and C does not force us to rely on the error of composition in the same manner, I can also see why is it supported to some degree.

Given this analysis, I can only assume that they are looking for me to differentiate based on degree of support, not definitive justifying support. The only way I can evaluate degree side by side and see why C is better is because it does not rely on the flaw of composition at all, whereas B does rely on it to a degree to derive value.

Let me know your thoughts here as this question confused me quite a bit. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

As I see it, cornflakes, there is zero support for answer B. The toddlers had difficulty and almost always persisted with sorting by shape. But that doesn't mean that none of them could solve the problem, and even suggests that some of them did adapt and solve the problem. B is just too strong. It grossly overstates the evidence. If we had seen this as a conclusion and been asked a Flaw in the Reasoning question we would have said the conclusion was stronger than the evidence allowed, perhaps calling it a "some evidence" flaw.

Answer C, however, is well supported, because the toddlers who stuck with the original approach did so not because they refused to change but because they were unable to do so, if the researchers are correct and we accept the claim in the last sentence. The soft language use of "may" in the answer also makes it much, much easier to select, because the stimulus supports the idea that this is possible.