Q22 - Advertisement: Hypnosis videos work to alter

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: In our hypnosis videos, each instruction after the first one is extremely effective.
Evidence: In order for an instruction to be effective on a hypnotized person, it must be repeated many times. And first instruction is "treat each instruction after this as though it is being said 1000 times".

Answer Anticipation:
Who says that the FIRST instruction will be effective? Wouldn't we have to say THAT one many times in order for the hypnotized brain to follow that instruction?

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES. If we weren't already keen to this answer from having "solved" the flaw upfront, we would need to ask ourselves, "Was there a requirement stated for directions to be effective?" We would re-read and find the part that says that in order for a direction to be effective, we have to say it many times. "Okay, does this ad, at some point, fail to keep in mind that you need to say a direction many times in order for it to be effective?" Ohhhh .. yeah, it's counting on people following the first instruction, but we only said that instruction one time.

(B) No, extreme assumption. The author didn't assume "effectiveness is ALWAYS PROPORTIONAL to number of utterances".

(C) DID the author conclude that "hypnosis is the most effective technique for changing behavior"? Nope, doesn't match, so no need to keep reading this answer choice.

(D) WAS this a circular argument? Is the conclusion basically identical in meaning to the evidence? Heck no! The conclusion is that "the videos are effective". The evidence added other ideas besides that (gotta repeat something many times .. First instruction says to interpret subsequent ones as being said 1000 times)

(E) Was this Unproven vs. Untrue? DID the author conclude that "hypnosis videos will be effective". Kinda … it concluded that "M's hypnosis videos are effective". Was the evidence something that sounded like, "No one has ever shown M's videos are ineffective"? Heck no. The evidence was all about the "many times + 1st rule" stuff.

Takeaway/Pattern: This argument is about as close as we ever get to the Famous Flaw of "Internal Contradiction". "Overlooking a requirement it states" is basically saying, "Dude, aren't you kinda contradicting yourself?"

I would suspect that many people won't catch the internal error on a first read ... this is where you really have to prove your mettle at identifying why Flaw answer choices are wrong.

You basically see three main categories of wrong answers:
"Extreme Assumptions", "Irrelevant Objections", and "Inaccurate Descriptions of the Argument".
B was an Extreme Assumption, and C/D/E were all Inaccurate Descriptions.

#officialexplanation

[BrookeY949]

You state that B (the answer I chose) is incorrect because it's an "extreme assumption. The author didn't assume "effectiveness is ALWAYS PROPORTIONAL to number of utterances". But in Answer Choice A that same effectiveness is presented as a requirement and in the advertisement we're provided, the author states "Directions to the subconscious MUST, however, be repeated many times in order to be effective."

"Must" from stimulus = mandatory. "Requirement" from Answer Choice A = mandatory. "Always" from Answer Choice B = mandatory. It seems to me the same logic that's used to pick Answer Choice A could reasonably be used to select Answer Choice B. I was (clearly) not able to eliminate this answer choice the first time around, but in reviewing my exam the real important differentiator for me became that Answer Choice A is explicit to mention "Overlooking that it states" in reference to the ad and not that B is too extreme.

[tw4jp]

Hi Patrick, I read your explanations and it helped a lot. However, I am still confused about answer choice D.
Can you explain more about circular reasoning and distinguish this question with pt 82 section 1 question 22? https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... hp?t=18281
Also deos this question have the same type of flaw with pt 78 section 1 question 22, https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/-t17464.html.

I am so confused by recent pt flaw questions and missed all three above.

[ohthatpatrick]

To initially circle back to the previous poster's question about (B), the word "must" does not in any way imply "always DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL".

The author says in his argument,
"If the direction to the subconscious isn't repeated many times, then it won't be effective".

(B) is saying that repeating it 120 times will be 20% more effective than repeating it 100 times.

The author isn't assuming anything that specific.

"it must be X in order to be effective" = a requirement stated for effectiveness

"it must be X in order to be effective" ≠ effectiveness is always directly proportional to X

--------------------------------------

Yes, the PT78 question was a bonafide example of internal contradiction. I wouldn't quite call this PT83 question internal contradiction, but it feels very near that idea, since the author actually said something that could serve as an objection to his own argument.

On the PT78 example, the author literally contradicts himself,
"You can't draw inferences ... but here's the inference we can draw".

Circular arguments in simple form sound like an opinion that is justified only by insisting on the same opinion.

"Football is the best sport, since all other sports are not as good as football."

More complicated versions sound like the author is incapable of considering potentially disconfirming evidence:

"Marsha is always honest. Some people have accused her of lying, but since she always tells the truth, her accusers must just have been incorrect or maliciously trying to slander her reputation."

Notice that I "drew a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion"

The CONC "M is always honest" simply restates a claim presented in support, "she always tell the truth".

Q22 on PT82 is this style of circular, but they did a real subtle job of showing us that the author was forcing his preset agenda on the conversation.

The author is saying "clearly societies START with barter and then go currency."

My evidence? Look at this isolated society that went from "currency to barter, back to to currency".

(We should be thinking ... "isn't that counterevidence? It looks like this society STARTED with currency and then went to barter.")

But the author ramrods his point of view by saying, "They had currency, then they switched to the original barter system."

Who said that BARTER was their ORIGINAL system?
Why can't we believe that CURRENCY was their original system? After all, as soon as currency was available again, they went right back to it.

The author is just presupposing that barter was "the original" system, without giving us any evidence for that idea.

If you want to see one more example, try this one:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t1682.html

[StratosM31]

Hi Patrick,

thanks for the explanation!

My prephrase was a slightly different one (although it led me to pick A obviously):

The flaw I found was not that the initial command had not been repeated 1000 times. Because even if it had been repeated, the subject would indeed treat the subsequent instructions AS IF they were repeated 1000 times, but they were actually NOT repeated 1000 times. The necessary requirement for effectiveness of an instruction is that it IS repeated many times, treating it AS IF it was repeated 1000 times still does not fulfill this requirement.