PrepTest 133, Section 1, Question 23
Researcher: Each subject in this experiment owns one(109 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe argument fails(25 more words not shown)
- BThe argument treats(13 more words not shown)
- CThe argument fails(19 more words not shown)
- DThe argument attempts(14 more words not shown)
- EThe argument applies(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Once you own a Subaru, you might start noticing Subarus everywhere. The Hondas passing you could barely register.
That gives us one possible reason to overestimate how common our own make of car is. Another is geography. Suppose Subarus are especially common where you live. Looking at the local roads could then give you a misleading picture of the whole country. Either possibility could help explain the survey result.
What did the experiment actually find? People gave estimates that were too high. It didn't count the makes of cars across different regions. The researcher proposes regional differences as an explanation, notes that this explanation predicts overestimation, and then treats the overestimation as proof that the regional differences exist.
What we’re looking for
That's too fast. The prediction came true, but another explanation could produce the same result. For the flaw question, I'd focus on the gap between observing mistaken estimates and proving the researcher's account of why people made them. The experiment needs to distinguish that account from alternatives such as simply noticing your own make more often.
Working the answers
- A
The experiment asks people to estimate and then compares their answers with the actual statistics. It doesn't need a separate estimate of how likely they were to know those statistics before the researcher can identify overestimation. The problem is what explains their errors, not the absence of a calculation about their prior knowledge.
- BCorrect
The result fits the hypothesis, but that doesn't prove the hypothesis. Regional differences could lead owners to overestimate their make's national share. So could paying more attention to the cars like their own, even without regional differences.
The words 'must indeed' turn a possible explanation into a certainty. The finding can support an account without ruling out competing accounts. B captures that overreach without requiring us to prove the researcher's hypothesis false.
- C
A geographically varied subject pool would be compatible with the researcher's explanation. Different people could overestimate different makes because each sees a locally common make at home. It would also be compatible with the attention explanation. Simply knowing that subjects might come from many regions doesn't resolve which explanation produced their estimates.
- D
The premises can all be true together. People could overestimate their car's national share, and regional differences could be one way to produce that error. Those claims don't contradict each other. The flaw is treating a compatible explanation as conclusively established, not starting with facts that cannot coexist.
- E
The researcher isn't taking a general statistic and applying it to a particular individual for whom it wasn't meant. The researcher moves from the subjects' mistaken estimates to a broad conclusion about regional car distributions. E describes a different move and misses the leap from a predicted result to proof of its explanation.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.