Q20 - Taylor: From observing close friends

[icebreaker]

Hi there,

I picked answer choice (A) for this question. I believe it is a trap answer choice for people with little time left, but who knows.

Anyway, is (A) wrong because "a good friend" and "a family member" are merely examples of the phenomenon? Taylor is not actually sampling any of them to conclude his argument? If the stimulus had said ". . . frequency with which 5 of my friends and 5 of my family members..." make answer choice (A) right?

I see why (B) is right. However, are we to insert our own alternative explanation? What would some examples be? And if we are able to come up with an example, is this a bad-big-leap?

Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

I thought this was a pretty weird question, I'm not gonna lie.

First of all let's sort out the formalities:

Question Type: Identify the Flaw

Argument core:
friends/family frequently know what another friend/family member is thinking (too frequently to be a coincidence)
---thus-->
telepathy is possible between people with close psychic ties

So, what's the trouble with this argument?

First of all, let's remind ourselves what 'telepathy' means. It's the idea that, for example, I think of the number '42' and wordlessly transmit that idea into your mind.

We can expect from LSAT's conservative world view that it is not going to be a big fan of endorsing something as magic and unscientific as telepathy.

So how else would we explain why good friends and family members often know what another is thinking?

How did you mom know that you were going to go watch Sportscenter after breakfast? Did you have the thought, "I'm gonna go watch Sportscenter" and then implant it in her brain? Or did she just know what you were thinking from having lived with you and observed your behaviors?

How did you best friend know that when you heard the words 'catnip' and 'evergreen' so close to each other that you were going to start thinking about Katniss Everdeen from 'Hunger Games'. Telepathy? Or is it just that your best friend is ALSO a huge 'Hunger Games' fan and has watched the movies / read the books with you?

It is an INCREDIBLY common LSAT argument template to see:
- premise: [some phenomenon]
- conclusion: [some explanation for the phenomenon]
- correct answer: [some alternative explanation for the phenom]

But, it was definitely harder (for me, at least) to decode that that's what was going down here.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the 2nd sentence is a phenomenon that needs some explanation, because 'coincidence' won't cut it. The 1st sentence is author providing HER explanation: telepathy.

LSAT wants us to consider the less exotic alternative that good friends and family members frequently know what we're thinking simply because they're good friends and family members ... i.e. they've spent a LOT of time around us and/or they have similar biology/psychology due to common genetics.

(A) You nailed why it's wrong. The conclusion doesn't extrapolate from a smaller set of data to a larger one. The conclusion only claims that telepathy is possible, and to prove something is possible you only need one example.

If I found a 4th grader who understood quantum physics, I can fairly conclude that "it's possible for 4th graders to understand quantum physics". It doesn't matter if the 4th grader I found has an incredibly weird, rare set of circumstances leading to her precocious understanding. It's not a sampling flaw unless I'm generalizing to a bigger group, saying something like "quantum physics should be taught as early as 4th grade".

(B) Correct answer ... definitely weird that the answer choice implies that we should have already considered this 'obvious' alternative rather than suggesting what the heck they're referring to.

(C) I think I've only seen this type of answer be correct once, ever. The premise is not an appeal to emotion, so this can't match up. An appeal to emotion is something like "I know my son violated his probation and thus deserves jail time, but he should be allowed to stay out of jail, since picturing him in a prison cell breaks my heart."

(D) 'presumes' and 'takes for granted' just mean Necessary Assumption. Probably the most common recurring trap answer in Flaw questions is to pair these up with some extreme claim. This one says that the author must assume that people NEVER know what a stranger is thinking. Eliminate.

The author is arguing that telepathy is possible among people with close ties. You can't infer from that that the author believes that telepathy is NOT possible among people WITHOUT close ties. Classic LSAT false opposite.

(E) This describes the formal flaw known as Circular Reasoning. The various common phrasings for it are:
- assumes what it sets out to prove
- presupposes what it seeks to establish
- the conclusion is a restatement of the the premise

These are almost NEVER correct answers. Like 97% of the time you see a Circular Reasoning answer choice, it will be wrong.

Nevertheless, I was more tempted by this one than usual. It DID seem like the author was so set on the truth of 'telepathy' that she was judging her family/friends' behavior with that preconceived idea.

But ... before you ever pick a Circular Reasoning answer choice, see if the conclusion and premise really do just say the same thing.

The premise here is just saying that friends/family so frequently know what one is thinking that it can't be a mere coincidence.

We can accept that idea without NEEDING to believe in telepathy. As discussed before, in relation to (B), we can accept the premise and simply explain it by appealing to the common experience / genetics of close friends and family.

A genuine example of (E) would be "Chocolate is by far the best flavor of ice cream. After all, if you considered every ice cream flavor in existence, you would find all of them inferior to chocolate."

Hope this helps.

[icebreaker]

(your amazing explanation)
Hope this helps.

Hey Patrick - thanks so much. I'm so glad I posted, I learned a lot more about the LSAT in just ONE explanation fro you. Merci!

Yes (B) is weird. I had down "best friends senses that's NOT telepathy? habitual observation?" There are other alternatives, I just didn't want to dictate them to be "highly plausible" on my own b/c it seems like an unwarranted explanation.

[513852276]

A little bit digression. If conclusion is "From observing close friends and relatives, it is clear to me that telegraphy is more likely between close psychic ties rather than strangers". Choice D is revised as "presumes without providing justification, that one can less frequently know what a stranger is thinking or feeling."

Will answer choice D be wrong as questioning the premise? In another word, does "amazing frequency" in premise suggests "frequency occurs between strangers" are not that "amazing"?

Hope someone could help me. Thank you:)

[ohthatpatrick]

That's a cool/weird parallel universe question.

=== reminder: we're NOT talking about the real question

=== STOP READING unless you're the previous poster.



With your comparatively worded conclusion, your new version of (D) sounds like something the author DOES need to assume.

But essentially, you're wondering if that's redundant.

Does saying that 'telepathy' occurs with "amazing frequency for friends/family members" already tell us that 'telepathy' occurs "MORE frequently" with friends/family than with strangers.

Honestly, I can see LSAT going either way on that one.

But to me, "amazing" is not comparative, so my gut says that your new version of (D) really IS an assumption we need.

I can say that the frequency with which Democrats vote along party lines is amazing.

Does that mean I'm distinguishing Dems from Republicans?

No. It's also amazing how frequently Republicans vote along party lines.

My amazement might be about the overall consistency, not a relative disparity.

However, in the overall context of this argument (the conc AND the prem), it DOES sound like the author is trying to distinguish close psychic ties from others. So in the context of this argument, the "amazing" in the premise sounds like it WOULD distinguish people with non-close psychic ties as having a non-amazing frequency of 'telepathy'.

So, a wishy-washy answer to your made up question. I think the premise on its own is not comparative, but in the context of the conclusion I think LSAT would support the inference that there is SOME distinction between close people and strangers, in terms of how frequently they know our thoughts.

[contropositive]

(A) You nailed why it's wrong. The conclusion doesn't extrapolate from a smaller set of data to a larger one. The conclusion only claims that telepathy is possible, and to prove something is possible you only need one example.

If I found a 4th grader who understood quantum physics, I can fairly conclude that "it's possible for 4th graders to understand quantum physics". It doesn't matter if the 4th grader I found has an incredibly weird, rare set of circumstances leading to her precocious understanding. It's not a sampling flaw unless I'm generalizing to a bigger group, saying something like "quantum physics should be taught as early as 4th grade".

Thank you for the post. A is saying the sample is too small to draw a conclusion. I think this is not the same as the sample is unrepresentative. Because it does seem like the author is going from a small set of sample (his friends) to concluding about larger sample (telepathy is possible between people), so if A was saying that the sample is unrepresentative then I would have picked it.

A can't be right because "too small of a sample" is too vague...he might have a lot of friends that he evaluated and I'm assuming the bigger your sample size the more likely it will be representative of the public. So I didn't know how big or small his sample was, which made me eliminate A.

Am I doing something wrong with this?

By the way, what is E saying? Is it circular reasoning?

Thank you Patrick for all your help...i learn so much from you all the time!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Thanks for the kind words. You're gonna hate me here because I've already answered both your questions.

Yes, (E) is circular reasoning (did you read my complete explanation above?)

(A) is wrong whether it says sample size OR sample representativeness. (you are correct, they are different things)

The author does NOT generalize about any group. The "friends" are not held to be representative of any broader group.

I can say that Usain Bolt (gold medalist at 100m dash) set the world record at 9.4 sec (I have no idea what his actual world record was).

It is correct to conclude, "It is indeed possible to run 100 meters in 9.4 seconds".

It doesn't matter that Usain Bolt is just one data point or that he is massively UNrepresentative as a runner.

The truth value of saying "X is possible" is contingent only whether X has ever happened.

So if the friends/relatives the author knows have authentically used telepathy, then the conclusion is 100% true. We're not considering them a sample. We're pointing to them as proof that something is possible.

Hope that makes sense.

[Jonathan.a.schw]

Just wanted to share, the explanation at the top of this chain is really great - not just for this question but for Flaw and LSAT questions in general.

[JorieB701]

I ended up talking myself into E because I liked/hated A.

My understanding of flaw questions is that they actually have to have done whatever is being charged in the answer choice. So, when I saw, "fails to address a highly plausible alternative explanation.." I was a little stymied. The coincidence reference made me feel like he didn't exactly fail to address another explanation; he simply addressed it and then dismissed it. Or is "mere coincidence" not an alternative explanation for the frequency with which they know what the others are thinking, rather a reason not to dismiss how awesome it is? Or is it just the "highly plausible" part of it that allows this to be correct?

S.O.S.

[ohthatpatrick]

How do we explain the amazing frequency with which good friends or family members know what each other is thinking?

Mere coincidence? (highly implausible)

Telepathy? (author's explanation)

They are just very familiar with each other's hobbies, interests, idiosyncrasies, speech patterns, cultural associations, etc. (our highly plausible alternative explanation, which the author failed to address)

You are correct: a valid answer must describe something the author has actually done (or in this case, something the author has truly failed to do).

The author DOES address a highly IMplausible alternative explanation (coincidence), but doesn't address a highly plausible alternative explanation (intimate familiarity with the other person).

Hope this helps.

[SuhCrates]

I have a question on (B).

I anticipated an answer choice like (B), but I hesitated to choose it because of the phrase "for all instances of the observed phenomenon."

Had it said "fails to address a high plausible alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon," I would have chosen.

I understand why the all other ACs are wrong. But I have still unclear as to why "all instances" gets a pass to be a correct answer choice.

I mean how do we know if the alternative explanation - that friends and families know what one is thinking - is a plausible one for every single case in this earth? Or is it in this instance, we are safe to assume that that is a highly plausible explanation for "all instances" of the observed phenomenon.

[DanielM354]

With all due respect to ohthatpatrick, in my opinion the highly plausible alternative explanation for all instances is simply that the family members literally told each other what they were thinking. This was not ruled out in the argument.

On this reading, it is more obvious why E is incorrect. You don't need to believe in telepathy to believe that it's possible to know what someone is thinking. They may have told you.

On ohthatpatrick's account, we would have to define knowledge as 'justified true belief' in order to explain why E is incorrect. Sure, it is possible to have justified true beliefs about another person's thoughts solely based on what we know about them. But does that mean we really know what they are thinking? It's actually an open philosophical question.