Method of Reasoning - Argument Part questions

[kristinaroz93]

Say for a method of reasoning argument question, you see this kind of answer choice, "It is a phenomenon for which the main conclusion of X's argument is cited as an explanation". I have run into a problem recently with this answer choice, and found it interesting.

My fist question is can an answer choice like this ever be correct on the LSAT? The reason I ask is because my first thought way "loser", since everything else is supposed to try and explain the main conclusion (i.e. it is the end of the road), versus having it try and explain other parts of the argument (i.e. premises/subconclusion). So I ask if there is ever a time this is the correct answer and maybe a hypothetical of how it could work.

(Also I saw this answer choice in LR problem # 4 page 441 of the LR Bible: "Nutritionist: Because humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture...")

Thanks so much!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for your question, it is a good one.

I think that this type of answer is unlikely to be the correct answer choice very often in a method of reasoning argument part question. I do not want to say that such answers will never be right - if I do, it will immediately happen, I'm sure - but it does not fit the mold of what we expect (or anyway what I tend to expect) from a MR-AP question answer choice.

Broadly speaking, the parts of an argument on the LR section are premises and conclusions - what is not a conclusion can presumptively be categorized as a premise, though of course we must confirm this by reading the argument carefully and understanding it's logical structure.

This answer choice fits into neither category. This, of course, does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does make it easier on is to verify whether the answer choice is correct. I think this one is wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. First, it describes the claim about which we are asked as a 'phenomenon,' which seems to be literally untrue - I am not sure how a claim could ever be a phenomenon, at least not in this context. A claim could describe a phenomenon or predict a phenomenon but I doubt that it could be a phenomenon when the claim is part of an LR stimulus.

2. Second, this author does not attempt to explain this claim by citing the conclusion - indeed, this description of the logical structure is exactly backward. This claim supports the conclusion, instead of being illuminated by the conclusion.

I hesitate to say no such answer choices will be correct, but I would encourage you to stick to a simple and fundamentally sound premise-conclusion understanding of these arguments in order to best approach MR-AP questions.

Does that help?

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Clay,

Thanks for your response! I guess I am just confused about the fact of how a main conclusion could ever explain premises or sub conclusions, when they are all targeted towards explaining it. I hope my question makes sense!


Best,

Kristina

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Kristina!

In the context of the nutritionist problem, Clay is right in saying that this answer doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But, one of my favorite exercises is looking at incorrect answers on Method and Flaw questions and trying to figure out what might fit that answer. So, I strongly encourage you to keep doing this—its a fantastic exercise that helps strengthen your ability to recognize how logical formations could be abstractly described by the test makers.

So, the answer choice in question reads, "It is a phenomenon for which the main conclusion of X's argument is cited as an explanation." The "it" refers to some part of the argument, so let's create a hypothetical example and see if we can't find a part of it to play the role described here.

• Scientist: In a remote part of Canada, strange lights often appear in the sky. Some observers, noting the random nature of these lights, have claimed that alien ships are producing the light shows. However, Earth's magnetic field is weaker near the North Pole, and scientists have concluded that these lights are caused by the interaction of our atmosphere and electrically charged particles coming from the sun. Thus, unusual atmospheric conditions near the Arctic cause these lights, not aliens.

Ok, that's not a perfect argument, but it will do for our purposes. Let's take this argument, and imagine that we see the following question stem:

• The claim that in a remote part of Canada, strange lights often appear in the sky plays which one of the following roles in the scientist's argument?

Under this type of stimulus and question stem, then something along the following could be a correct answer:

• It is a phenomenon for which the main conclusion of the scientist's argument is cited as an explanation.

Here's where we see a difference between a correct answer and an incorrect answer. The term "cited" in this answer choice is one that I don't find to be well-supported. But, when the nutritionist's problem was created, they knew this was a wrong answer, so they could let that go and not really worry about it. If this was to be a correct answer, then I'd suggest that they would remove the words "cited as" and then the answer would make a bit more sense.

Anyway, it's a really interesting exercise, and excellent on your part to see that answer and think about it in this way. Good work!

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for showing me an example where that answer choice could possibly work, I really appreciate it. Let's say we change cited to "stated", would the answer be correct then? Or what can we change it to?

Also, why does "cited" not work in the answer choice for your problem? I actually do not see anything wrong with it, and may have picked the answer with confidence.


Best,

Kristina

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Kristina,

I wouldn't change "cited" to anything—I'd simply remove it and leave the answer as: "It is a phenomenon for which the main conclusion of the scientist's argument is an explanation." I'd make that change because it's more accurate. The conclusion does contain an explanation of the lights ("unusual atmospheric conditions near the Arctic"). "Cited" as it is used in the answer implies that some other part of the argument mentioned the conclusion; that's not what happened and instead the conclusion simply contains the explanation. As I said, though, if this was to be the correct answer, it wouldn't contain "cited" and they'd have removed that segment.

Remember, Method questions have to pass a Fact Test of sorts wherein each part of the answer has to be shown to occur. In my example at least, there isn't a citation of the conclusion explanation elsewhere, and that would be a problem.

Thanks!