#20 - A research psychologist used a personality test to classify

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Except, Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[merkvslsat]

Answer Is D, this answer choice introduces reverse causality of the phenomenon, not an explanation

[qiranz]

Hi,

I got this question wrong and hoping to see if I figured out the reason why D was correct.

As it asked for explanations contribute to the phenomenon, we are looking for factors that can contribute to the discrepancies between "repressors" and "sensitizer". D is a hypotheses trying to explain the phenomenon, but all the other answer choices are presented as facts leading to the differences. Therefore, D is incorrect.
Other than that, D is very persuasive and can be a potential contributing factors to the phenomenon.

I was drawn to E because all the other four answer choices are talking about "repressors" and what contributes to their personalities, but E focuses on "sensitizer".
Based on the question stem asking "Each of the following, if true, contributes to an explanation of the repressors' characteristics mentioned above, EXCEPT", which made me think the question stem was asking about repressors all along, and it made E so much attractive than it should have been.

Can somebody please help me with this. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E talks about comparing sensitizers to repressors, qiranz, and it helps explain the difference in characteristics between the two groups. It's crucial to note that the conclusion isn't just about repressors; it's about comparing repressors to sensitizers, and showing that they have more or less of various characteristics. It's that relative comparison aspect that answer E helps to further explain! That's where answer D falls flat - it doesn't tell us anything more about that comparison, while all the other answers do.

[mkarimi73]

Question about (D): Could one also eliminate this answer choice because it is weakly worded ("some"), and it mentions a hypothesis as well. A hypothesis is a possible explanation of a phenomenon, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is true. I got persuaded by (D) because a hypothesis can technically act as an "explanation," and since this is a Resolve the Paradox-Except type question, I thought this provided some type of explanation. Yet, I noticed that A, B, C, and E all mention a comparison between the two groups, as you mentioned. And, these are much better answer choices for the LSAT world.

So, what's the proper standard here? Avoid answers that are weakly worded at all costs? Because I have seen previous Paradox questions where the correct answer was a "some" statement, yet I recognize that using such a standard is not applicable to ALL LSAT problems. You have to stay flexible and attack the stimulus on its own terms. I'm not sure what to do here...

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mkarimi73!

As you point out, this is a resolve the paradox/except question. So four of the answer choices will revolve the paradox and one will not.

You comment,

Yet, I noticed that A, B, C, and E all mention a comparison between the two groups, as you mentioned. And, these are much better answer choices for the LSAT world.

Yes, in general terms, resolve the paradox questions will in some sense involve two "groups," or more precisely, there will be two statements or phenomena that are in tension with one another. Answers that resolve the paradox have to take both statements/phenomena/sides to be true. Often, an answer choice will explain one side but fail to explain how it and the other aspect can both be true at the same time. In addition, in this question, the stimulus specifically makes a comparison ("The researcher found that, compared to sensitizers, ..."). Thus it's not just the LSAT world in general but can also be seen in this stimulus.

You also ask,

So, what's the proper standard here? Avoid answers that are weakly worded at all costs? Because I have seen previous Paradox questions where the correct answer was a "some" statement, yet I recognize that using such a standard is not applicable to ALL LSAT problems. You have to stay flexible and attack the stimulus on its own terms. I'm not sure what to do here...

The word "some" doesn't make (D) problematic. Just to clarify since you mentioned eliminating this answer choice, (D) is the correct answer. But even if the word "some" were changed to "all," this still wouldn't resolve the paradox that repressors tend to excel in certain respects even though sensitizers are more attuned to their internal states. It might explain how the successes of repressors can be self-reinforcing, but it doesn't connect/compare this to sensitizers. Since this comparison is part of the paradox to be explained, this confirms that it is the correct answer on a resolve/except question.

Finally, you seem to provide the right counsel yourself: "stay flexible and attack the stimulus on its own terms." It's good in general to note language like "some" and note when this language indicates weakness, but the particular role and relevance of such language will depend on the stimulus, question stem, and answer choices.

[sonohan]

I also got this question wrong, but now that I am reviewing it, I see a simpler possible way of isolating D as the right answer. Please let me know if you think my logic make sense.

The Question asks "Each of the following, if true, contrinutes to an explanation of the repressorts' characteristics mentioned above except."

If it were indeed true that Some Psychologists have hypothesized something, it does not automatically impy that the Psychologists' hypothesis was correct, it simply means that the Psychologists did indeed hypothesize something related to Rs. Here, the actual hypothesis of the Psychologists is irrelevant when compared to the other answer choices, all of which, if true, provide new Facts (unlike D) which directly contrinute to "an explanation of the R's Characteristics."

a) They are better able to focus and avoid distractions than sensitizers: if this is true, they will probably get higher grades

b) Repressorts are less apt than sensitizers to alientate others by expressing their emotions : if this is true, they indeed have better social skills

c) They indeed have stronger financial incentives to attain better grades and behave in a socially desirable way: if this is true, it can explain why Rs perform better than Ss

d) Correct answer, since the fact that Psychologists theorized about something does not make their theory automatically correct. All this tells us is that Psychologists had some ideas (hypothesis) about Rs, but we have no direct evidence to verify that their Hypothesis is correct.

e) Rs spend less time thinking about the difficulty of achieving something than Ss do. If true, thinking less negative thoughts give Rs more time to do positive things.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi sonohan,

While you are correct to be suspicious of wording like "some psychologists have hypothesized" as not being as strong as a statement of fact like the other answer choices, and that it is certainly possible that the psychologists are wrong, I wouldn't rule it out (or in this question, select it as the correct answer since this is an EXCEPT question) simply for this reason without comparing it to the other answers.

The primary reason that Answer D does not contribute an explanation to facts above is that this hypothesis only explains (potentially) why some people would want to repress upsetting thoughts and feelings, not why repressing those feelings actually leads to these other outcomes, such as better grades, being less shy and anxious, etc.

[a.hopp]

I understand now that D is correct because explaining why thoughts/feelings are repressed does not explain the results repressing those thoughts/feelings has.

I am confused by B - am I misinterpreting this answer when I understand it to mean repressors are less likely to alienate people when they express emotions than sensitizers? How does this offer an explanation of the characteristics brought about by repressing emotions? It seems like the lack of the consequence of alienation when expressing emotions makes it less necessary to repress.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi a.hopp

If repressors are less likely to alienate others by expressing intense emotion, that would explain the better social skills of the repressors. Alienating others would be subpar social skills, so if the sensitizers are more likely to alienate others, that would mean the repressors have better social skills.

Hope that helps!