PrepTest 141, Section 4, Question 1
In an experiment, ten people were asked to(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe ten people(32 more words not shown)
- BSimilar results were(13 more words not shown)
- CChocolate is normally(12 more words not shown)
- DThe five people(26 more words not shown)
- ESome subjects who(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the chocolate got in the way. But did the two groups get the same coffee?
Imagine giving the chocolate group five cups of the same brand, while the other group gets several noticeably different coffees. Of course the first group would report that the samples tasted alike. They were alike. Chocolate wouldn't have to explain anything.
The proposed explanation is plausible if the relevant conditions are otherwise comparable. Eating chocolate might make it harder to distinguish the coffees. But we haven't established that chocolate was the important difference between these groups, rather than their samples or something else about the experiment.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the conclusion. My first guess would be a problem with the samples: the chocolate group got identical coffee, and the other group got a mix. That would explain the different reports without blaming chocolate. Another way to show that the comparison doesn't isolate chocolate's effect could work too.
Working the answers
- A
Random assignment helps the experiment. If people were assigned by their tasting ability, that could explain the results; assigning them randomly makes that concern less compelling. Some participants' requests don't change this, because the answer says the actual assignment was random.
- B
Getting similar results with a different, larger group gives us more reason to take the original result seriously. It doesn't expose a reason to doubt the conclusion. Different results might have challenged the finding, but B says similar results.
- C
Solid versus liquid doesn't explain why one group could distinguish the coffees and the other couldn't. We're examining whether eating chocolate interfered with tasting coffee, not how people generally consume the two products.
- DCorrect
These same people still couldn't distinguish the coffee samples when the chocolate was gone. That gives us a different explanation from my prediction: perhaps this group already had trouble telling coffees apart. Their original performance needn't have been caused by the chocolate. D doesn't diagnose their taste buds or prove that chocolate can never affect taste. It does undermine the claim that chocolate explains this experiment's result.
- E
Subtle differences and considerable differences are both differences. The coffee-only group needn't agree about their size for the original comparison to stand. E doesn't explain why the other group reported that the samples all tasted alike.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.