PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 13
Journal: In several psychological studies, subjects were given(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- ARegardless of the(21 more words not shown)
- BIt is unrealistic(24 more words not shown)
- CThe statements originally(11 more words not shown)
- DMost of the(21 more words not shown)
- EMost of the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the subjects found another reason to believe it?
Taking away the original evidence doesn't necessarily take away all the evidence. Suppose someone predicts that I have a serious illness based on a fortune-telling session. I later receive a diagnosis supported by medical testing. Learning that the fortune was invented wouldn't erase that new reason for concern. The belief could survive the loss of its original basis without becoming groundless.
That's the question I have for this study. The subjects formed beliefs from the supplied statements, then continued to hold them after being told those statements were false. But did anything happen in between? The journal's conclusion refers to an absence of any credible evidence, while the study description only removes the evidence that started the belief.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to undermine the argument. I'd look for another source of support the subjects acquired. That would challenge the inference that their continued belief shows they believe things without evidence.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because a correct belief might have other evidence behind it. But the choice tells us the beliefs were mostly correct, not that the subjects had any evidence of their correctness. A person could happen to believe something true for no good reason.
The journal's claim is about whether people keep beliefs without credible support. We need information about the subjects' reasons, not just the beliefs' truth. A leaves that distinction unresolved, while D addresses it directly.
- B
This offers a reason people might fail to revise beliefs when the original basis disappears. It doesn't show that they still have credible evidence. Calling such revision unrealistic could help explain the persistence reported in the studies, but it doesn't challenge the journal's interpretation in the way we need.
- C
If the initial statements could mislead people even when true, that makes them a questionable basis for belief. It doesn't establish another credible basis the subjects had when they learned the statements were false. The choice gives us more reason to question the original material, not the conclusion that people continued without support.
- DCorrect
By the time the subjects were told the original statements were false, most had acquired confirmation of their new beliefs. The original statements therefore weren't their only support.
That changes what the persistence shows. A subject could abandon the original reason while reasonably keeping a belief that other evidence now supports. Like the diagnosis in our example, later confirmation can survive the loss of the first explanation. The journal has treated the withdrawal of one source as the withdrawal of every credible source.
- E
Being skeptical at the beginning tells us how the subjects initially reacted, not what support they had later. They eventually formed the beliefs, and the question is why they kept them after the original statements were withdrawn. Initial doubt doesn't establish an alternative reason for their eventual persistence.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.