Q4 - Ray: Cynthia claims that her car's trunk

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Cynthia's trunk did NOT open because the car hit a pothole.
Evidence: On other occasions when the trunk popped open, the car had NOT hit a pothole.

Answer Anticipation:
One immediate reaction is simply that Ray assumes "if it was true in the past, then it's true now". This is a silly line of reasoning. It's like saying, "There's no way that Sheila missed work today to give birth. After all, when she's missed work in the past, it wasn't to give birth." We might prephrase an answer like "Ray assumes that a past cause must therefore be the present cause" or "Ray fails to consider that more than one thing can cause a trunk to open".

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Would this weaken? Somewhat, since it corroborates the plausibility of Cynthia's story. But it has nothing to do with the reasoning. This argument is about Cynthia's car, and specifically about Ray's confusion that if her trunk has previously popped from non-pothole causes than it must be popping again from non-pothole causes.

(B) Would this weaken? Not at all. We don't care at all about the effects on the engine.

(C) Tempting, since it's about causes. Ray assumes that "if non-potholes caused the trunk to pop in the past, then non-potholes are causing the trunk to pop in the present instance". Can we match that up? Not really. This is saying that ONE cause cannot have MORE THAN ONE effect. What we need is an answer that says Ray assumes that ONE effect cannot have MORE THAN ONE cause. The correct version of this would read "presumes that if an event has been caused by one factor, it cannot also be caused by some other factor."

(D) Yes! This gets at the idea of "more than one possible cause". This addresses the faulty move from "potholes weren't the cause in the past ---> potholes aren't the cause in the present".

(E) This refers to Circular Reasoning, in which the conclusion is a restatement of the premise. Basically, a circular argument HAS NO premise. It just assumes it's right. This argument, however, DID have a premise: the past causes of Cynthia's trunk popping.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a good example of an argument that everyone realizes is dumb, and yet it can still be dicey finding which answer choice is the best description of it. Match up the abstract language in the answers with the specifics from the argument, and be clear on how you would make your counterargument. With (D), we're saying "Ray, a trunk can get popped for a lot different reasons, so maybe THIS time, the reason WAS a pothole." With (C), we'd be saying "Ray, even though a non-pothole caused the trunk to pop, a non-pothole could ALSO cause OTHER stuff!"

#officialexplanation

[Shiggins]

The author concludes that Cynthia's claim about the pothole leading to the trunk opening is mistaken.

The evidence is that trunk has opened without hitting pothole. Is choice D the same as saying that hitting the pothole is only sufficent to bring about the trunk opening.

Claim: HP->TO

evidence: ~HP->TO

Conclusion: HP->~TO

[ohthatpatrick]

You're basically correct in your thinking, but I would caution you against trying to symbolize all these claims conditionally.

Cynthia's claim:
Hitting the pothole caused my trunk to open

you could represent that as HP --> TO, but she's not actually saying something so universal as "Whenever you hit a pothole, the trunk opens". She's really just saying that in this instance, the pothole cause the trunk to open.

Ray tries to argue that hitting the pothole wasn't the cause.
Why?
Because other times the trunk has opened it wasn't due to a pothole.

(this is as bad as arguing, "Shelly can't be laughing at the joke I just made. After all, when she's laughed in the past, it's been for reasons other than the joke I just made.")

We could definitely describe Ray's flaw in the language of nec/suff conflation (confusing one with the other). Ray thinks that because other causes in the past have been sufficient to produce the effect of the trunk opening, we can conclude that any time the trunk opens, it must necessarily be one of those previous causes.

Or we could just describe it conversationally and say, "Ray, you're right. Previously, running over a curb caused my trunk to pop open. And going over a speed bump too fast caused my trunk to pop open. But, doesn't it make sense that driving over a pothole could ALSO cause my trunk to pop open?"

So D is just saying that the event of "truck popping open" could be caused by many different things --- just because past causes weren't potholes doesn't mean that potholes can't be a cause.

Or in the language of nec/suff conditions: "just because a condition is not NECESSARY to produce a certain outcome, that doesn't mean the condition is not SUFFICIENT to produce a certain outcome"

i.e., Ray's evidence, that the trunk has popped open, even when potholes were not involved, proves that "hitting a pothole" is not NECESSARY to trigger "trunk opening".

What he's doing in fighting Cynthia's conclusion, though, is trying to say that his evidence proves that "hitting a pothole" is not SUFFICIENT to trigger "trunk opening".

Let me know if that raised more questions than it answered. Nec/Suff language is tricky.

[Shiggins]

The explanation was excellent and after I had posted it I realized it is not a "true" conditional statement. You also touched upon this when explaining it was for this instance in particular which helped clarify my understanding. Thank you

[joseph.m.kirby]

Cynthia believes that hitting a pothole caused her trunk to open.

However, Ray says that, on other occasions, other factors have caused the trunk to open.

Ray concludes that, for this instance, a pothole did not cause the trunk to open.


For this flaw question, we need to extract Ray's assumption. Basically, Ray reasons that if other factors can cause the trunk to open, then the pothole cannot be the cause. Or, if the pothole is the cause, then other factors cannot cause the trunk to open.

Ray's assumption is flawed in that the opening of the trunk can have multiple, or many, causes. (D) highlights the flaw in Ray's assumption.

[mchelle]

Can someone explain why (E) is wrong? I was stuck between (D) and (E), and while I got the right answer, I can't really explain how (E) is incorrect...thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

The language in (E) describes Circular Reasoning.

Circular Reasoning is when the conclusion is the same as the premise.

For example:
Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. After all, no other flavor of ice cream is as good as chocolate.

Does this sound like an LSAT argument?

No! They almost NEVER give us circular arguments. But they ROUTINELY offer us this answer choice in Flaw questions.

Circular Reasoning is the #1 recurring wrong answer on Flaw questions. Get to know the wording of Circular Reasoning answer choices, and you basically have a freebie, automatic-elimination every time you see it.

(There are 2 or 3 historical examples of LSAT doing a real circular flaw, but they are outnumbered by the HUNDREDS of times circular reasoning shows up as an incorrect answer choice)

CIRCULAR REASONING:
"presumes the truth of the claim that it is trying to establish"
"assumes what it sets out to prove"
"presupposes what it seeks to establish"
"the conclusion is a restatement of the premise"

If (E) were the correct answer, it would mean that Ray's argument sounded something like this:
Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk's popping open to the car's having hit a pothole. After all, she was wrong to say that hitting the pothole caused the trunk to pop open.

== other answers ==

(A) the trunks of other cars are outside the scope of the central issue: "was it or wasn't it a pothole that popped open Cynthia's car's trunk?"

(B) the negative effects on the engine are outside the scope of the central issue: "was it or wasn't it a pothole that popped open Cynthia's car's trunk?"

(C) Presumes = assumes, so let's start by asking ourselves, "Did Ray assume that one event causes another?" Sort of. He does assume that non-pothole events have previously caused Cynthia's trunk to pop open. Does Ray go on to assume that non-potholes cannot cause other events? No. Ray goes on to assume that potholes cannot cause the event of popping-open-her-trunk.

[taylor.loeb]

My issue with this Q:

I chose (C) semi-reluctantly, because (D) struck me as a no-no for the following reason:

It says that Ray "fails to consider the possibility that one type of event can be caused in many diff ways."

But, doesn't he clearly consider that possibility when "The car had popped open on several other occasions and that on none of those occasion had the car hit a pothole."

He doesn't say "the trunk popped open because Cynthia accidentally hit the 'open trunk' button" or something very specific, but rather seems to have, at least considered, that the trunk had popped open on several other occasions.

Does that make sense?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're just projecting your own thoughts onto Ray.

If Ray were considering alternate causes for the trunk popping, he would never reach the conclusion he does.

Think about it this way ...

We're trying to assess whether or not Cynthia's trunk got popped open by hitting a pothole.
(She thinks a pothole caused it, but we're evaluating the truth of that story)

You believe that many things cause trunks to pop open
Cynthia: the trunk has popped open before, and none of those times was a pothole involved.

So ... this most recent time, was it a pothole that caused it or not?

THE VERDICT: Who knows? Might've been a pothole, might not.

Now ..

You believe that ONLY ONE THING can cause trunks to pop open
Cynthia: the trunk has popped open before, and none of those times was a pothole involved.

So ... this most recent time, was it a pothole that caused it or not?

THE VERDICT: Clearly it was NOT a pothole. From past history, we know that "the" trunk-popping cause is not potholes.

=======

Ray only arrives at his conclusion that a pothole WAS NOT the cause by citing other times when the trunk opened where a pothole was clearly not the cause.

The only way you get from
"sometimes I'm nowhere near a pothole, but my trunk pops open"
to
"you are wrong to say, today, that a pothole caused your trunk to pop open"
is if you assume
"the same thing is always causing your trunk to pop open"