Q19 - People who have habitually

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

For match the reasoning questions, you want to simplify the subject matter as much as possible in order to see the reasoning between elements. We can think of the argument as follows:

People who usually do X then start doing Y feel less anxious.
Therefore, if you do X, you can probably become less anxious by doing Y.

There is a correlation/causation issue in the argument, so we should expect that our correct answer will exhibit that same flaw.

The four wrong choices for a question such as this one will vary, in subtle or obvious ways, from the structure of the original argument.

Here's a quick list of some of the ways in which the answers don't match up with the argument:

(B) is about "certain" small companies, whereas the original argument is more of a generalization. (If you don't think this is a significant difference, think about the difference in meaning between the phrases "people will survive" and "certain people will survive.")

(C) "Must" helps us eliminate this answer quickly. It doesn't match the degree of "probably."

(D) "Only if" is very different in meaning from the original argument (the argument never said getting 8 hrs of sleep is "only" way of feeling less anxious.)

(E) is tempting, but "could become financially strong" is very different from getting stronger. Also, this "never" (which relates to something different than the "never" in (B)) is also not a great match with the argument.

That leaves (A), the correct answer. If we think about structure, it matches up very nicely with the original argument.

Let's look again quickly:

People who usually do X then start doing Y feel less anxious.
Therefore, if you do X, you can probably become less anxious by doing Y.

And let's match (A):

Companies that didn't advertise on internet start to do so and financial situation improves.
Therefore, if you haven't advertised, can probably improve financial situation by doing so.

This argument has the correlation/causation flaw and the right degree.

Hope that helps!


#officialexplanation

[avs_broncos]

I can't see why this is A and not B.

Is it because of the different placement of the phrase addressing the behavior previously untried? (Only by typing it out did I even come up with that, btw.)

Thanks.

[noah]

Tough question. For starters, the placement of the different elements is irrelevant. The LSAT will often move around the different components when generating a correct answer to parallel reasoning questions.

Part of the process with these parallel reasoning questions is to boil down the question to it's sheer minimum. For this one, we could say that the original is:

people who usually don't do X

who then begin doing X

typically end up with Y as a result

therefore, most people who don’t do X

can probably cause Y

if they begin doing X

Answer choice (A) matches up nicely:

people who usually don't do X - when a small company first

who then begin doing X - begins to advertise on the Internet

typically end up with Y as a result - its financial situation generally improves

therefore, most people who don’t do X - This shows that most small companies that have never advertised on the Internet

can probably cause Y - can probably improve their financial situation

if they begin doing X - by doing so

Answer choice (B) is the most tempting wrong answer because it has all of the required elements (versus some of the other answers which are missing parts), however it begins with "Certain small companies", which is different than people in general. "Certain" indicates a select group, while "People who" indicates all people (which is later tempered with "typically", but that is still much broader than "certain small companies").

Does that make sense?

[bradleygirard]

Maybe I am off base here, but I eliminated (b) not because of the change in 'certain small companies', but precisely because 'certain small companies' isn't repeated in the end of the answer choice. It took me a minute to figure out, but as I carefully read I noticed that at the end of (b), it switches from 'certain small companies' to 'most small companies'. If you reread the stimulus it doesn't say that most people can cause their anxiety levels to fall by sleeping 8 hours a night, it says that 'most people who sleep less than 6 hours a night...'
Not that I am disagreeing with you, just expanding on why (b) is incorrect.

[noah]

Interesting point. Another teacher focuses on something similar to that, but I don't see it as being reason enough. The stimulus moves from "people" with condition X -- meaning "all people" -- to "most people" with condition X.

(B), while incorrect, imitates the second part of that move by stating "most small companies". But, it doesn't begin with a version of "all" small companies. My colleague thinks that it's a problem that (B) does not repeat the phrase "had never previously advertised", but (A) actually has the reverse problem! It doesn't start with "never advertised" but does end with it.

We use this problem in our classes, because it's a good example of how modifier switches can help you rule out answer choices.

[mdjd145]

Maybe I'm off as well, but after getting it wrong on a pt, and rationalizing through the choice the stimulus states: People who have habitually slept ...... hours a night TYPICALLY begin to feel much less anxious. Therefore, MOST, people who sleep less than six hours a night can PROBABLY cause.....

A) When a small company first begins to advertise on the Internet, its financial situation GENERALLY (links to typically) improves. This shows that MOST small companies that have never advertised on the Internet can PROBABLY improve.

B)Certain small companies that had never previously advertised on the Interned have found that their financial situations began to improve after they started to do so.

In this first part, it is stating that these "certain small companies" do improve, without likening it to usually, typically, generally, etc; I also agree that the wording of "certain" small companies also is a factor, but this just seemed easier in terms of rationalizing. Thoughts?

[noah]

Nice! I think the "certain" may have been an attempt - so to speak - of introducing a lack of certainty, but it fails since "certain small companies" simply indicates that it's only this and that company, while "generally" indicates above 50%.

I agree that that is a bit faster to catch that. Interestingly, in all the times I've taught that, that's never the reason that people eliminate (B) - I wonder if it's because of what "certain" seems to do.

[LSAT-Chang]

(E) is tempting, but "could become financially strong" is very different from getting stronger. Also, this "never" (which relates to something different than the "never" in (B)) is also not a great match with the argument.

Hey Mike!
I just wanted to clarify what you posted above for the explanation to (E). In regards to your first point, isn't "could become financially strong" similar to what the stimulus says: "can probably cause" and what (A) says: "can probably improve". I don't understand what the difference is here. In regards to your second point, "never" is actually also stated in answer choice (A) which is correct..

I mean the reason why I eliminated (E) was because it didn't have the last part about "by doing so" -- it just ends with "could probably become financially strong" -- how? it doesn't explain this part, so that was my reason for eliminating it. But I wanted to make sure I understood what you were talking about in regards to (E).

Please help clarify!

[noah]

I'll chime in about the "could probably become financially strong" bit. The beginning of (E) promises that a company's situation will improve if it does X, and then, in the second sentence it says a company could become stronger. It's not parallel. We should see something about achieving an improved financial situation.

I'm not too sure why Mike sees "never" as a problem, since it's in (A). I didn't like it in (E), but it's bad form to complain about something that's in the correct answer choice! Similar to criticizing the look of your wife's identical twin sister. But, maybe we're missing something that he sees...

[redcobra21]

"Why assume there's a flaw in the argument?"

Thanks for the helpful responses Noah! That helped a lot. Sorry for making this thread even longer, but still have some questions about this one if you get a chance.

One thing that I'm not sure about is the contention that you and Mike posit about how the stimulus's first sentence refers to a general statement. When I initially read the stimulus, it sounded like the first sentence was saying that CERTAIN people (those who HABITUALLY sleep less 6 hours) will feel less anxious by starting to sleep 8 hours. From this, the stimulus concludes that MOST people who sleep less than 6 hours will feel less anxious by sleeping 8 hours. The absence of the original qualifier of "people who HABITUALLY SLEEP less than 6 hours" in the conclusion raised a red flag to me, and made it sound like the conclusion was referring to people in general who might sleep less than 6 hours one week because maybe they have a tight work deadline feeling better if they sleep 8 hours again. As I read it, it sounded like the stimulus was making a conclusion about MOST people based on what happened to a SUBGROUP of the people who had a unique habit.

That's actually why the word "certain" made me pick (B) as opposed to (A). Am I missing something? I might be wrong so feel to correct me. Thanks again for the great explanations!

[noah]

Good question. I think you and I may see it in reverse from each other!

I agree that the stimulus limits people to those who have habitually slept blah blah, but then it doesn't limit that group any further. It just say "People who..." Not, certain of those people.

(B) has "Certain small companies that..." blah blah, so it has small companies that blah blah and then it further picks some of those folks.

That make sense?

[513852276]

Could "people who have habitually sleep less than six hours" be CERTAIN people "sleep less than six hours"?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure what you mean by "could ONE be the OTHER"?

If you're asking, "are they interchangeable?", then the answer is no.

If we made the switch you're proposing, then (B) would look way better.

There's a huge difference between saying
"People who buy lottery tickets typically hit the jackpot"
and saying
"Certain people who have bought lottery tickets hit the jackpot".

That's the crucial difference between the first sentence of (A) and the first of (B).

The first sentence of (A) gives you reason to think that starting to advertise on the internet gives you a LIKELY OUTCOME of an improved financial situation.

The first sentence of (B) does NOT give you grounds to think that an improved financial situation is an expected, probable outcome.
(Just as saying "certain ppl who buy lottery tickets win the jackpot" does not give you reason to believe that buying lottery tickets TYPICALLY/GENERALLY results in a big payout)

Does that make sense?

[Mab6q]

I have some issues with this questions and a general question about parallel reasoning questions if anyone has a second. This may have been answered in the book, but I don't recall.

First, will a parallel reasoning questions ever present a flawed stimulus??

I think not knowing the answer to this question is what messed me up. I read the question and thought of it like this:

The argument is assuming that the people referred to in the conclusion have habitually slept less than six hours. So, we probably need to have some form of mismatch in the answer choice as well.

Now, I understand that is a parallel reasoning, not flaw, question and we need to focus on the reasoning structure of the argument. Honestly, I don't think that was the issue here for me, but I felt like that answer choice needed to have that mismatch as well (flaw).

A. Looks tempting because the reasoning seems to match for the most part, but doesn't have the mismatch that is presented. This argument looks valid!

B. Tells us that certain small companies have this trait (never previously advertised begin then began to improve.....), then goes on to conclude that most small companies can also improve this way. This seems to have the same mismatch issue presented in the stimulus: we don't know that the companies in the conclusion never advertised before.

Looking past that, it's clear that B has other issues. As was mentioned above, I believe the best reason for eliminating B is that the original premise says "typically", whereas here we have no such limitation in B's premise.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is if this question was asking for a answer choice that contained flawed reasoning like the argument, wouldn't B be a better choice? And if this stimulus is flawed, doesn't that automatically make it a parallel flaw question? Maybe I'm just mistaken and it's not a flawed argument.

Thanks for all of the help guys.

[maryadkins]

I don't think "people who sleep less than six hours a night" in the conclusion means they are not habitual less-than-six-hour sleepers. If anything, I think it means they ALWAYS sleep less than six hours a night. So yeah, not a flaw to match, here. Even if it was a flaw question, (B) wouldn't work.

Sometimes parallel/matching questions will have flaws, yeah, and you still want to find the structurally most similar match. It will also include the flaw. There won't be an answer that has the right flaw and another one that doesn't have it but is the right answer; that wouldn't make sense. If it's a structural match, it's a structural match. Look for all the pieces to match up, including the flaw, if it's flawed.

[michaelm.allison]

Since "people who" would create a conditional statement in the premise, can we eliminate "B" and "E" since they do not have conditional premises?

[AshleyT786]

The stimulus says "people who have etc" so I take that to mean it's a general observation, but answer choice A says "a small company" so am I supposed to take that to be a general rule as well or talking about literally one company? I was hesitant to pick this one because I wasn't sure if the premises matched