PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

ricks_trying
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:47 pm

PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby ricks_trying » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:57 pm

can someone explain why C is the credited response?

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:04 pm

The question asks us to explain why the results of the observation supported the initial hypothesis.

Hypothesis: Studying more increased a student's chances of earning a higher grade.

Observation: The students who spent the most time studying did not earn grades that were as high as many students who studied less.


The key here is that the hypothesis is a comparison between a student who studies say 10 hours a week and that same student if he/she were to study say 20 hours per week. So, while the hypothesis is a prediction about how a single student would perform under various conditions, the observation is a result measured across different students. Answer choice (C) helps to explain why the observation across students did not undermine the hypothesis about any one particular student.

(A) is a comparison across students, whereas the conclusion is about a particular student under various conditions.
(B) is irrelevant. This might be addressing another issue related to student performance, it does not explain why the researchers stuck with their initial hypothesis.
(C) helps explain why the researchers concluded that the hypothesis was supported by the results of the observation. If the students improved relative to themselves, then the more a student studied the better chance they had of earning a higher grade.
(D) says that the students who studied the least weren't busy doing other things. What students do when they're not studying is irrelevant to whether studying improves their grades.
(E) is irrelevant. Understanding course material and receiving a higher grade relative to others doesn't help support the idea that studying more can improve your own grade.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Tue May 25, 2010 11:56 pm

Does the question assume that a grade in a course is the grade of some exam but not of the whole course? I thought a student could have only one grade for a course and hence can't possibly achieve a better grade for one single course.

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Wed May 26, 2010 1:13 am

The argument does not assume that there is more than one grade for a course. The reference to a "higher grade" at the end of the second sentence is simply a comparison between a relatively high grade vs. a relatively low grade overall.

The hypothesis is that studying more increases the chance of earning a higher grade. We'd like an answer choice that supports the hypothesis and answer choice (C) does that.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 11:35 am

But if a student cannot achieve at least two grades for a course, how is it possible for scenario C to exist?

In order to test the hypothesis, you normally select two groups of students with similar qualifications and backgrounds with different amounts of studying for one particular course, then compare their grades. It's impossible to test the hypothesis on one student unless one assumes that a student can have two grades or more for one course. Is there some fundamental logic that I completely missed here ? :?

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Wed May 26, 2010 1:36 pm

Let's put some numbers on it.

Within one course, let's say Math, there are 5 students.

1. Studied 8 hours per week and received a D+
2. Studied 10 hours per week and received a C
3. Studied 12 hours per week and received a B-
4. Studied 13 hours per week and received a B+
5. Studied 15 hours per week and received an A

I think that such a scenario is what answer choice (C) is implying. The more each student studied, the higher their grades were. Let me know if you read it differently.

UFmark
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:01 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby UFmark » Wed May 26, 2010 2:11 pm

Just because the majority of students that studied MORE did not receive higher grades then the students that studied LESS does not disprove the hypothesis that studying MORE = increased chance of A STUDENT earning a higher grade.

The hypothesis is based on the INDIVIDUAL and not the GROUP of students which is explained in the observation. So if a student were to go from studying 2 hours a week to 20 hours and raised his grade from a F to a D- this would prove the theory correct, regardless if a student who studied only 5 hours received an A. The INDIVIDUAL still earned a HIGHER grade because they studied MORE.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 3:31 pm

I understand everything you guys said, but I just don't get how the hypothesis can be tested on one individual for one course unless the student somehow can get different grades for one course. Does that make sense?

UFmark
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:01 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby UFmark » Wed May 26, 2010 4:14 pm

HiLine wrote:I understand everything you guys said, but I just don't get how the hypothesis can be tested on one individual for one course unless the student somehow can get different grades for one course. Does that make sense?



The stimulus describes the time period of the study as "one academic year all the students at a high school were observed." What is to say that that the students did not receive multiple grades from one course? The study could have observed the study habits and grades of all the students in American History over the course of "one academic year." This could mean that the students could have received a grade in American History quarterly or even per semester(or even for that matter, what is to say that this specific high school didn't give you a grade in a course after every 2 weeks?). This could mean that during the first semester they studied a total of 50 hours for the course and received a C and then during the second semester they studied 100 hours and received a B, in turn, proving the hypothesis correct.

Even IF there was only one achieved grade in the course, the hypothesis does not even specify finality of multiple grades as means for proving it correct. The study could have observed the amount of studying time as it correlated to the students current average in the class all the way until they received there final grade. For example:

**Student 1 Observations**

Week 1: Current Average: 77.4 - Amount of Time studied: 5 hours
Week 2: Current Average: 80.1 - Amount of Time studied: 7 hours
Week 3: Current Average: 82.5 - Amount of Time studied: 9 hour
xx
xxx
xxxx
Final Grade/Average: 88.9 - Average amount of time studied per week increase - 2 hours.

So as we can see, the more Student 1 studied per week, the higher his grade was in the course.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 4:25 pm

Then either way you allow for multiples grades for one class, which is the assumption I didn't get while taking the Preptest and am trying to prove as necessary.

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Wed May 26, 2010 6:32 pm

Your last post led me to think you believe the argument is flawed because it requires an assumption, and feel that while the answer choice may help, it would not prove the conclusion.

Remember, on Strengthening Questions you do not need to prove the conclusion. Anything that makes the conclusion more likely to be true will work.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 6:49 pm

Rather, I am blaming myself for not recognizing the hidden assumption in the material presented in the stimulus rather than of the argument. :)

User avatar
zworykin
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby zworykin » Wed May 26, 2010 8:17 pm

Hypothesis: Studying more improves grades.
Evidence: Students who studied the most did not earn grades as high as many who studied less.
Conclusion: The results supported the hypothesis.

I think I can explain the disconnect here: the prompt says that students who studied most did not earn "grades" as high as some students who studied less, but it doesn't say anything about those "grades" being in the same courses. It's just talking about overall GPA.

The scenario I imagined here is that the students who studied the most earned, say, a 3.0 GPA for the term and studied 20 hours each. Some other students may have earned a 3.5 while only studying 10 hours. However, for the students who studied the most and earned that 3.0 GPA, let's make a hypothetical report card:
Class 1: No studying, C 2.0
Class 2: No studying, C 2.0
Class 3: 10 hours studying, A 4.0
Class 4: 10 hours studying, A 4.0

And even for the ones who studied less overall:
Class 1: 5 hours studying, B 3.0
Class 2: 5 hours studying, B 3.0
Class 5: No studying, A 4.0
Class 6: No studying, A 4.0

They didn't take the exact same courses--but in the courses they did both take, more studying meant a higher grade. Yet because the first student took harder classes overall, he ended up with lower grades than the second student despite more overall studying.

Remember in this situation nothing is stated about the students taking the same courses. You can build any hypothetical scenario you want. And you're not looking for proof, just a possible reason why the researchers would make what seems, otherwise, to be a ridiculous conclusion.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 10:47 pm

The correct answer choice must be some observation on the outcomes of the experiments in order for it to support the conclusion. The scenario in answer choice C is unlikely to be an observation unless it is assumed that a student may have multiples grades for one course. I was trying to figure out whether it is reasonable to make such an automatic assumption in real life.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby Dany » Wed May 26, 2010 11:04 pm

HiLine wrote:The correct answer choice must be some observation on the outcomes of the experiments in order for it to support the conclusion. The scenario in answer choice C is unlikely to be an observation unless it is assumed that a student may have multiples grades for one course. I was trying to figure out whether it is reasonable to make such an automatic assumption in real life.

You have to remember the question stem says "Which one of the following, IF TRUE, most helps to... yadda yadda"
It could say the most ridiculous thing you've ever read, or something that doesn't make any "real world" sense, but you still have to assume it's true nonetheless. In other words, it doesn't matter HOW an individual's grade was higher in a course, just that it was higher when they studied more.

If you insist on getting into a real world scenario, remember that a student will always have one - and only one - CLASS grade, but generally, individual assignments or exams make up that grade. So say the student does not study for the first two exams and their CLASS grade (the average of the 2 exams) is a 60. They study for the last two exams, their exam grades are better, and their final CLASS grade is an 85. The "more the student studied, the better his grade was in that course" (pretty much word for word from answer choice C).

User avatar
zworykin
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby zworykin » Wed May 26, 2010 11:14 pm

HiLine wrote:The correct answer choice must be some observation on the outcomes of the experiments in order for it to support the conclusion. The scenario in answer choice C is unlikely to be an observation unless it is assumed that a student may have multiples grades for one course. I was trying to figure out whether it is reasonable to make such an automatic assumption in real life.


I think you're stuck on the idea that any given individual student improved his or her score in an individual class by studying more as time progressed. That isn't a condition that I'm seeing in the answer. "The more a student studied" doesn't mean we're discussing only one student. It just means that if student A studied more than student B, then student A got a higher grade.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 11:20 pm

eskimo wrote:
HiLine wrote:The correct answer choice must be some observation on the outcomes of the experiments in order for it to support the conclusion. The scenario in answer choice C is unlikely to be an observation unless it is assumed that a student may have multiples grades for one course. I was trying to figure out whether it is reasonable to make such an automatic assumption in real life.

You have to remember the question stem says "Which one of the following, IF TRUE, most helps to... yadda yadda"
It could say the most ridiculous thing you've ever read, or something that doesn't make any "real world" sense, but you still have to assume it's true nonetheless. In other words, it doesn't matter HOW an individual's grade was higher in a course, just that it was higher when they studied more.


Even so, if the correct answer choice helps to explain why the researchers drew the conclusion it must come from the observation; if something is not observable how does it bring about the conclusion?

eskimo wrote:If you insist on getting into a real world scenario, remember that a student will always have one - and only one - CLASS grade, but generally, individual assignments or exams make up that grade. So say the student does not study for the first two exams and their CLASS grade (the average of the 2 exams) is a 60. They study for the last two exams, their exam grades are better, and their final CLASS grade is an 85. The "more the student studied, the better his grade was in that course" (pretty much word for word from answer choice C).


Right. So that assumes multiple grades for a course, an assumption that the test taker is supposed to make, which I failed to do.

User avatar
HiLine
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:57 am

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby HiLine » Wed May 26, 2010 11:24 pm

zworykin wrote:
I think you're stuck on the idea that any given individual student improved his or her score in an individual class by studying more as time progressed. That isn't a condition that I'm seeing in the answer. "The more a student studied" doesn't mean we're discussing only one student. It just means that if student A studied more than student B, then student A got a higher grade.


Oh! :shock: I think that's exactly my problem. :shock:

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 52, Section 1 (LR), #14

Postby mz253 » Thu May 27, 2010 8:42 am

the hypothesis is study more, higher grades (individual wise)

the "turn out" is students who spent most time studying didn't earn grades as high as many others who studied less (which compares individuals to their peers)

however, as long as the results has C, "the more a student studied, the better the grade is" is true, then the hypothesis is supported




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RPlatt85, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests