PrepTest 106, Section 3, Question 20
Game show host: Humans are no better than(57 more words not shown)
Each of the following describes(9 more words not shown)
- AA conclusion is(14 more words not shown)
- BNo evidence is(14 more words not shown)
- CA broad conclusion(18 more words not shown)
- DToo general a(19 more words not shown)
- ENo evidence is(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the chimpanzee got lucky.
One month, one chimp, and five analysts are a thin basis for a conclusion about humans and apes generally. Perhaps these five analysts had an unusually bad month. Perhaps their investments would perform better over a longer period. A short contest doesn't establish what typically happens.
We could also wonder what the host means by “investing.” The passage answers that question: the comparison is about returns. Keep that definition in view rather than substitute a different standard for being good at it. We can accept the reported winnings and still question how far the host takes them.
What we’re looking for
This is a flaw EXCEPT question. Four answers should identify problems with the reasoning. My main concerns are the tiny group and the short period. We want the remaining answer, which fails to identify a problem even if it points out something the host never discussed.
Working the answers
- A
One chimpanzee doesn't adequately represent apes generally. It might be an unusual chimp, and chimpanzees are only one kind of ape. The host's conclusion reaches far beyond the animal actually tested. That is a flaw, so eliminate A.
- BCorrect
The host defines success by the return, not by the quality of the decision-making process. An animal could achieve a return without understanding a stock report or making a reasoned decision. We don't need to establish sophisticated analysis to compare results.
The experiment still fails to establish a reliable general comparison, for the reasons in the other answers. But the absence of evidence that the chimp understands investing isn't itself the missing support for the return-based claim. Don't choose a flaw merely because its description of an omission is true.
- C
Five humans might not represent humans generally, even if they are stock analysts. Imagine choosing a highly unusual subgroup and treating it as typical—like using basketball players to estimate the height of all people. We'd need a reason to trust that the selected people reflect the wider group. The host hasn't provided one.
- D
The conclusion concerns investing without limiting itself to a one-month contest. Short-term results don't establish how investments perform over much longer periods. The experiment leaves that broader comparison untested, so this is a legitimate criticism.
- E
This focuses on what could happen to these very portfolios later. An analyst's choices might gain value over time while the chimp's early gains disappear. We don't know. Without considering longer-term performance, the host can't treat this one month's ranking as an adequate basis for the general conclusion. Like D, E identifies a real time-limit problem.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.