Q13 - Journal: In several psychological studies

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This argument says that people will hold onto acquired beliefs even in the absence of any credible evidence to support them. The problem with this argument is that just because the subjects were told that their new beliefs were false doesn't mean that the subjects hadn't already acquired evidence to support their new beliefs. The conclusion assumes that the subjects do not have any evidence to support their beliefs, when in fact the subjects may have evidence that outweighs being told that the belief is false.

Simple Analogy: Sarah is told that most people prefer green to any other color. She asks around and everyone she talks to says they prefer green. Then she is told that it is not true that most people prefer green. Now she doesn't know what to believe, but she does remember that when she asked around people told her that they liked green. To continue to believe that green is the most popular color is very reasonable, because the evidence she has gathered points her in that direction.

(A) would have been the correct answer if it had worked in something about evidence of the belief being true. The fact that the belief is true, doesn't tell us that we have evidence that the belief is true.
(B) is irrelevant. Knowing that it is unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs does not undermine the conclusion that people hold onto beliefs in the absence of evidence to support them.
(C) is irrelevant. Whether the statements are misleading or not, does not inform us as to whether these subjects had any evidence to support their claims.
(D) undermines the argument. With this information it is less likely that these subjects are holding on to their beliefs in the absence of evidence.
(E) is irrelevant. If the subjects were initially skeptical, why did they acquire the belief. Maybe they needed evidence. This answer choice doesn't undermine the conclusion that people hold on to beliefs even in the absence of evidence.

[hyewonkim89]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for such a great explanation.

But I'm still have a hard time understanding why A isn't the answer.

Will you explain it in another way?

Thanks in advance!

[DanielNaydenov]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for such a great explanation.

But I'm still have a hard time understanding why A isn't the answer.

Will you explain it in another way?

Thanks in advance!

If I may, I will try to help you understand the fault in Answer A.
The main conclusion that the Journal makes is that the acquired beliefs are held onto by humans even in the absence of evidence to support them.

Notice how Answer (A) speaks as to the CORRECTNESS of their beliefs, without mentioning evidence of their support. The conclusion of the Journal has no bearing on whether or not the beliefs themselves were correct.

The correct Answer (D) addresses the issue of Evidence, stating that, in fact, the humans in question had Credible Evidence to support their belief, regardless of the original statement. In doing so, they place the conclusion of the Journal under serious scrutiny.

[Nina]

I have some problem eliminating E. I was thinking that if most subjects were initially skeptical of the original statements, they may have found other evidence to support their newly formed beliefs. Doesn't this weaken the conclusion that they didn't have any credible evidence to support their new beliefs? Or, is it wrong because it needs extra jumps to assume those subjects had evidences?

Thanks a lot!

[NichP73]

This argument says that people will hold onto acquired beliefs even in the absence of any credible evidence to support them. The problem with this argument is that just because the subjects were told that their new beliefs were false doesn't mean that the subjects hadn't already acquired evidence to support their new beliefs. The conclusion assumes that the subjects do not have any evidence to support their beliefs, when in fact the subjects may have evidence that outweighs being told that the belief is false.

Simple Analogy: Sarah is told that most people prefer green to any other color. She asks around and everyone she talks to says they prefer green. Then she is told that it is not true that most people prefer green. Now she doesn't know what to believe, but she does remember that when she asked around people told her that they liked green. To continue to believe that green is the most popular color is very reasonable, because the evidence she has gathered points her in that direction.

(A) would have been the correct answer if it had worked in something about evidence of the belief being true. The fact that the belief is true, doesn't tell us that we have evidence that the belief is true.
(B) is irrelevant. Knowing that it is unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs does not undermine the conclusion that people hold onto beliefs in the absence of evidence to support them.
(C) is irrelevant. Whether the statements are misleading or not, does not inform us as to whether these subjects had any evidence to support their claims.
(D) undermines the argument. With this information it is less likely that these subjects are holding on to their beliefs in the absence of evidence.
(E) is irrelevant. If the subjects were initially skeptical, why did they acquire the belief. Maybe they needed evidence. This answer choice doesn't undermine the conclusion that people hold on to beliefs even in the absence of evidence.

This is a hard one! Given that D as an answer doesn't actually provide us with any reason to believe that the confirmation of the beliefs that they acquired was actually credible! Especially if the confirmation of the beliefs were false!

[JeremyK460]

This is a hard one! Given that D as an answer doesn't actually provide us with any reason to believe that the confirmation of the beliefs that they acquired was actually credible! Especially if the confirmation of the beliefs were false!

i say to you: sport team X is the worst team
you form a new belief: sport team X will one day be the best team in the league
then i say to you: sport team X isn't the worst team
and then you say: i still don't think they'll ever be the best team

does this mean you're holding onto your belief in the absence of any credible evidence to support your shit with?

not at all.

what if you found out that X is the second worst team, and none of the best players in the league want to play there because it's in a super small market (like it's located in Milwaukee)

it's possible that the original statement i give to you is false, but then to conclude that you believe in your new belief based off of no credible evidence to support it would be assuming that my original claim is the ONLY possible evidence that would be supporting your belief, which would be ridiculous