PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 19
Researcher: In an experiment, 500 families were given(66 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the researcher's(5 more words not shown)
- Ait is possible(21 more words not shown)
- Bthe families in(13 more words not shown)
- Ca state of(10 more words not shown)
- Dtwo different states(18 more words not shown)
- Ecertain states of(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Fewer doctor visits doesn't necessarily mean healthier families.
Imagine a child develops the same cough either way. Without the book, the family consults a doctor. With the book, the family looks up the symptom and decides not to make that visit. That change in behavior could reduce visits without establishing that the child's health improved. The study does not tell us which explanation is right.
What we’re looking for
The researcher tells us improved health can reduce visits. But the book could reduce visits through a different route. For the flaw, I'd look for an answer separating the observed change in doctor visits from the unproven improvement in health.
Working the answers
- A
Some families in the comparison group might obtain their own books, but that possibility doesn't establish what the observed decline in visits means about health. Even if nobody in that group had a book, the researcher would still need to distinguish improved health from a change in consultation behavior.
- B
Accessing advice outside books is possible, but the central question remains whether fewer visits reflect better health. Families could use another information source and become healthier, or simply change when they consult a doctor. B doesn't identify the mistaken inference from the outcome to the claimed improvement.
- C
This describes one cause producing multiple effects. We could imagine a book affecting both health and visits, but saying one thing can have two effects doesn't explain why the observed drop fails to establish better health. Nor does C itself assert that health improved. The flaw we need involves two possible routes to the same observed result, which D describes.
- DCorrect
Translate each part. The two states are having the book and having improved family health. The shared effect is fewer doctor visits. Improved health could reduce visits, as the premise says. Having the book could also reduce visits by changing when a family consults a doctor.
Those routes needn't run through each other. The book doesn't have to improve health to affect consultation behavior, and improved health doesn't have to cause book ownership. The researcher sees the same result associated with the book and assumes the book must have produced it through better health. That is exactly the connection the experiment hasn't established.
- E
This proposes a common cause of book ownership and fewer visits. But the experiment gave books to one group of families; the question isn't simply why some families naturally choose to own them. More importantly, E doesn't identify the particular error in treating fewer visits as evidence of improved health. D directly describes the alternative route that defeats that inference.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.