#21 - George: Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, hardly

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

Apparently, over the last few decades the number of people who take up ballroom dancing has
skyrocketed. George is wondering why, and Boris only pretends to answer his question. In reality,
Boris’s response merely describes how ballroom dancing became so popular, not why. The fact that
many people in the mid-1990’s learned the merengue and several related ballroom dances does not
explain why they took ballroom dancing in the first place. Prephrasing the flaw in Boris’s response is
helpful in identifying answer choice (D) as correct.

Note that each answer choice identifies something that Boris failed to do. The only omission that
would qualify as a logical flaw is an omission to address something the argument needed to address.
If the omission described is an irrelevant consideration, the answer choice would be incorrect as the
omission would not qualify as a logical flaw.

Answer choice (A): Whether the people who learned the merengue are the same people who are now
interested in other ballroom dances is irrelevant. We know from Boris’s response that merengue is
related to ballroom dancing.

Answer choice (B): Boris’s job is to explain why ballroom dancing became so popular after the mid-
1990’s, not why it was so unpopular before. This is a Reverse answer choice.

Answer choice (C): Boris did not relate the merengue to the forms of dancing that were prevalent
before 1995, but this is not a logical flaw. The fact that the merengue was related to ballroom
dancing is enough to make the merengue a relevant example in his argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. George asked why so many people now
taking ballroom dancing lessons. An adequate response would need to account for the beginning of
the revival of interest in ballroom dancing, not trace its evolution. Since Boris’s response fails to take
that distinction into account, answer choice (D) is correct.

Answer choice (E): Boris is under no obligation to demonstrate that all types of ballroom dancing
are currently popular.

[smile22]

In this question, I understand that George is wondering why so many people are not taking ballroom dancing when in the 80s and 90s hardly anyone learned the dance. However, I am unsure what flaw is being represented in Boris' response. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hello smile22,

Thanks for your question. Let's take a look at the dialogue between George and Boris more closely:

George asked why so many people are now taking ballroom dancing lessons. An adequate response would need to account for the beginning of the revival of interest in ballroom dancing, not trace its evolution. In reality, Boris merely describes how ballroom dancing became so popular, not why. The fact that many people in the mid-1990’s learned the merengue and several related ballroom dances does not explain why they took ballroom dancing in the first place. Prephrasing the flaw in Boris’s response is helpful in identifying answer choice (D) as correct.

Hope this clears things up!

[lsatstudier]

Hi,

Could someone please clarify why D is correct instead of B?

Thank you!

[Robert Carroll]

lsatstudier,

Answer choice (D) is correct because it is the flaw Boris made in his argument. George wondered why ballroom dancing had a revival. Boris claims that merengue and several related ballroom dances had a revival, which led to a revival of other forms of ballroom dancing. This isn't an explanation of the revival, because merengue and several related ballroom dances are, after all, ballroom dances! So Boris should have explained why the initial revival of those forms occurred.

An explanation of the revival of ballroom dancing doesn't need to explain why it wasn't popular before 1995. Thus, Boris's failure to do this does not constitute a flaw. This is why answer choice (B) is not correct - Boris didn't talk about it, but the question is not asking to identify just anything Boris failed to do. Rather, it is asking you to identify what Boris failed to do that makes him vulnerable to criticism. It must be something such that failing to talk about it constitutes a point against Boris's argument. An explanation of the revival in 1995 doesn't need to talk about the lack of interest before 1995, so Boris is not vulnerable on that point.

Robert Carroll

[Khodi7531]

Hey so i'm a little confused on this question.


I debated between B and D and I chose B. I thought because Boris's response fails to "explain why ball room dancing wasn't popular BEFORE 1995" was exactly it. And when I read it now, I still see it that way.


The issue is that he never explains how it started, which is the question asked. Just what happened during 1995 and it's revival. However, it can be inferred that the right answer can be "he doesn't explain why it started at the time before 1995". The only issue I can see with that statement is that "this can also refer to 1994...or 1993 or 1992" which isn't what George is asking about.


He asks between 1980- EARLY 1990s. But then again...early 1990s can account for those years as well (before 1995, which is mid).


Boris fails to explain why ball room dancing wasn't learned, and was unpopular, in those years. He jumps to..well in 1995 this is how it started.

So I still can't see why D would be better than B. Only thing I can see is maybe cause B is so specific and the 1995 raises those questions I listed above, whereas D is more general. But is that a reason to pick one over the other??

No matter how often I get stuck on these 50/50s, I try to take my time, read them carefully, compare, see the difference, compare it to what I anticipated...and still somehow chose the wrong answer.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Khodi,

Good questions, and this problem is a fine example of how closely LSAC expects you to read. It's a fine example also of how you can get down to two answers during the exam that seem so similar yet have basic differences when they are deconstructed. Let's look at each answer:

• Answer choice (B): The reason this answer is attractive is because it occurred: Boris did not in fact explain why ballroom dancing was so unpopular before 1995. But, even though he failed to do so, it's not a flaw. The question George posed was, "Why is it that a large number of people now take ballroom dancing lessons?" and not "why didn't people take ballroom dancing lessons before?" So, Boris isn't obligated to answer a question that wasn't there, and can't be cited for a flaw in failing to do so.
  
  Answer choice (D): This answer is a tricky one, both because the flaw Boris made and the way it is described here are not what you'd expect. First, Boris' flaw is to simply repeat the claim George made and then explain why it got even bigger:
  
  
  • George: "A large number of people now take ballroom dancing lessons, why?
    
    Boris: "Yes, in 1995 a lot of people learned ballroom dances, and then because of that others caught on."
  
  Note how Boris basically says that people started taking ballroom dancing but gives no explanation for why, and the why is what George asked about. That's what (D) is driving at by saying he failed to "account for the beginning of the revival of interest in ballroom dancing"—there's no explanation of why, just an acknowledgment that it happened.

A very cool problem, and one worth studying to see the subtle but definite differences between (B) and (D).

Thanks!

[ericj_williams]

Hi Khodi,

Good questions, and this problem is a fine example of how closely LSAC expects you to read. It's a fine example also of how you can get down to two answers during the exam that seem so similar yet have basic differences when they are deconstructed. Let's look at each answer:

• Answer choice (B): The reason this answer is attractive is because it occurred: Boris did not in fact explain why ballroom dancing was so unpopular before 1995. But, even though he failed to do so, it's not a flaw. The question George posed was, "Why is it that a large number of people now take ballroom dancing lessons?" and not "why didn't people take ballroom dancing lessons before?" So, Boris isn't obligated to answer a question that wasn't there, and can't be cited for a flaw in failing to do so.
  
  Answer choice (D): This answer is a tricky one, both because the flaw Boris made and the way it is described here are not what you'd expect. First, Boris' flaw is to simply repeat the claim George made and then explain why it got even bigger:
  
  
  • George: "A large number of people now take ballroom dancing lessons, why?
    
    Boris: "Yes, in 1995 a lot of people learned ballroom dances, and then because of that others caught on."
  Note how Boris basically says that people started taking ballroom dancing but gives no explanation for why, and the why is what George asked about. That's what (D) is driving at by saying he failed to "account for the beginning of the revival of interest in ballroom dancing"—there's no explanation of why, just an acknowledgment that it happened.

A very cool problem, and one worth studying to see the subtle but definite differences between (B) and (D).

Thanks!

But isn't the why explained? How would saying that the popularity of one set of dances leading to the popularity of other set of dances not explain the why?

Why are a large number of people are now taking ballroom dancing?

Because the popularity of one set of dances led to the popularity of another (ballroom).

I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate that being a why from a how. It's seems to be accounting for the revival by way of certain other dances. How is it not accounting for the revival by way of other dances?

[Dave Killoran]

But isn't the why explained? How would saying that the popularity of one set of dances leading to the popularity of other set of dances not explain the why?

Why are a large number of people are now taking ballroom dancing?

Because the popularity of one set of dances led to the popularity of another (ballroom).

I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate that being a why from a how. It's seems to be accounting for the revival by way of certain other dances. How is it not accounting for the revival by way of other dances?

I'm not totally clear on what you are asking here in context to my explanation and the problem, but I'd refer you back to my original explanation since it's nuanced. Boris explained why ballroom dancing became popular again. He did not explain why it was unpopular before 1995. That is a small but important difference, and we can't assume that knowing it got popular from related dances tells us why it was unpopular before. So, with that in mind, his reply to George is better described as (D).

Thanks!

[ericj_williams]

But isn't the why explained? How would saying that the popularity of one set of dances leading to the popularity of other set of dances not explain the why?

Why are a large number of people are now taking ballroom dancing?

Because the popularity of one set of dances led to the popularity of another (ballroom).

I just don't see how you can reasonably differentiate that being a why from a how. It's seems to be accounting for the revival by way of certain other dances. How is it not accounting for the revival by way of other dances?

I'm not totally clear on what you are asking here in context to my explanation and the problem, but I'd refer you back to my original explanation since it's nuanced. Boris explained why ballroom dancing became popular again. He did not explain why it was unpopular before 1995. That is a small but important difference, and we can't assume that knowing it got popular from related dances tells us why it was unpopular before. So, with that in mind, his reply to George is better described as (D).

Thanks!

Thank you for answering. I think I still need to refine my ability to discern what the testmakers are after and eliminate the weaker choices.

I think the lack of clarity in my question reflects a lack of ability.