Q16 - Researcher: Results indicate that

[mrudula_2005]

It's clear how B is most parallel here but I'm wondering where exactly it is that C goes wrong - it does seem to be saying that instead of prestigious schools causing getting good jobs, it could reversed in that the job market is biased towards favoring prestigious school students in the first place. Isn't that parallel to the stimulus argument? Clearly it isn't though so what WOULD make it parallel? Thanks!

[cyruswhittaker]

The stimulus indicates that the causal relationship is not necessarily true because it could be reversed.

B matches this, but C does not. C begins with a correlation but rather than asserting that one of the two could have equally served as the cause of the other (which is what the stimulus does), it goes on to present a different explanation based on employers.

If instead C asserted something like "...These studies do not show that prestigious schools increase the chances of students getting good jobs, however, since it is possible that students who are more likely to get good jobs attend prestigious schools" then I think it would be aligned with the reasoning in the stimulus.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

That's a great explanation cyrus --

mrudula_2005 -- let us know if you need any follow up!

[mrudula_2005]

awesome. makes a lot more sense - thanks a lot cyrus and mike!