Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby testmachine45 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:32 pm

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of prestzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.

The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument:

A)treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well.


I don't understand why the answer is A. What are the individual categories and what does it mean to be 'across a category?' This is not an unambiguous commonly used part of our vernacular(thus having a common meaning) as far as I know.

Edit: DEC 94 LSAT, LR 1, #20
Last edited by testmachine45 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18406
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby bk1 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:34 pm

Remove the text of the question and replace it with a reference to PT #, Sec #, Q #.

User avatar
sayruss11
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:47 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby sayruss11 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:41 pm

The evidence sites that the longer a PRETZEL remains in contact with the teeth, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result and then based on this makes a conclusion comparing pretzels to caramels. This is flawed because the evidence is relative to the category of pretzels and generally you shouldn't make a conclusion about one category (pretzels) relative to another category (caramels) based only on evidence from one of the categories, but thats exactly what the argument does.

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby testmachine45 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:42 pm

NICE. TY.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18406
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby bk1 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:44 pm

testmachine45 wrote:NICE. TY.


You still haven't removed the text you copied from the PT itself. You should do that.

testmachine45
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby testmachine45 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:45 pm

I did not copy from the PT itself.

fosterp
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby fosterp » Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:13 pm

Its because comparing a pretzel that contacts a tooth for 2 seconds to a pretzel that contacts a tooth for 4 seconds is not the same as comparing a pretzel and caramel.

(arbitrary numbers here)

lets say 3 seconds of contact with pretzel is 10% chance of cavity

and 6 seconds is a 20% chance of cavity.

Then we say this increasing likelyhood is the same of caramel.

1 seconds of caramel = 40% chance of cavity

2 seconds of caramel = 80% chance of cavity

The caramel is having less contact, yet a higher chance of cavity. The premise is taken to be true yet comes to a different conclusion. This is because the correlation within a category (pretzel) does not hold across to a different category (pretzel to caramel).

User avatar
sayruss11
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:47 pm

Re: Logical Reasoning Brain Teaser

Postby sayruss11 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:43 pm

testmachine45 wrote:I did not copy from the PT itself.


ummm "copy" as in "use the exact words". just erase the text from the original post. and btw its PT 13 S2 Q20




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: batlaw, bearedman8, brewpub16, circle.the.wagons, DumbHollywoodActor, Greenteachurro, Instrumental, Pozzo, tx1990, Yahoo [Bot] and 40 guests