## LR PT47 S3 Q8

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
melmoththewanderer

Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

### LR PT47 S3 Q8

Quick LR question.

All of A through D offer alternate explanations. Is the flaw here that the argument makes a generalization on the basis of information in one country?

Daily_Double

Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm

### Re: LR PT47 S3 Q8

PT 47, S3, Q8: Flaw

Wow. What a broad conclusion. So we're looking at causation here, and a terrible analysis of it. As usual, we have correlation supporting causation, this is easily one of LSAT's most often used structures.

Core: The model of car one drives greatly affects the chances that one's car will be stolen

Why?

(p1) The model stolen the most back home last year was the same as the year before.

There are a number of problems here. But my prephrase would hit on the usual correct answer which would go something along the lines of: The argument fails to address the possibility that other factors caused the car to be stolen most often." For example, what if all of the cars of this model are located in a city with an awful crime rate, or what if all of the cars of this model don't lock? The possibilities are endless. Let's move to the answers:

A: Huh, that's not what we are looking for, but it does get at a gap. The argument is about the number of cars stolen. Well this answer gets at the issue that what if there's not many other cars? This establishes a reason for the core not to be drawn from the premises. It wasn't the model of the car, just the availability of it.

B: So what. This doesn't preclude the possibility of the core being drawn.

C: Same as B. If anything this is another reason that the model affects the chances that one's car will be stolen.

D: God no.

E: Same as D.

melmoththewanderer wrote:Quick LR question.

All of A through D offer alternate explanations. Is the flaw here that the argument makes a generalization on the basis of information in one country?

To answer your question, no that's not really the flaw. Theoretically it could be, but I think the language in the stimulus would have to be shifted so as to allow that to be true. Furthermore, evidence from a country, such as the type given in the stimulus, is sufficient to allow the conclusion to make a generalization, just because the sample size is so large. The flaw is really that the argument doesn't consider other options which may deny the alleged causal explanation.

sighsigh

Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

### Re: LR PT47 S3 Q8

Hey, OP. I do not think what you stated could be taken as a reasonable flaw of this argument. "Ample" in this context really means "significant," and I'd say two years of stolen car statistics in a single country reasonably constitutes significant evidence.

The major flaw in the stimulus is the classic correlation => causation flaw.

A car model type is correlated with it being stolen.
---
A car model type causes it to be stolen.

(A) states the flaw by listing a potential alternative cause: that the frequency of the model type - not the type itself - causes it to be stolen.

melmoththewanderer

Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

### Re: LR PT47 S3 Q8

Good discussion. I want to push further and make my case for my odd interpretation of this problem. But, I leave open the option of y'alls shooting me down.

The argument concludes the evidence is ample to support the conclusion that the model greatly affects how often people steal it. The reason I consider the alternate cause insignificant here is because the speaker never said that this was the only cause. In fact, it leaves other causes open by noting that this is something the greatly affects, so it's not even a cause per se.

"A" seems to me to be suggesting a distribution issue. This response was the only one where I noted it mentioning the speaker's country suggesting perhaps this phenomenon is limited to the speaker's country and not widely applicable. If A was true, this would require the speaker to at least respond by widening the scope of his/her evidence.

The argument is almost like me saying because Peugeots have been the most stolen cars in France for the past two years, that gives ample evidence that the fact that it is a Peugeot greatly affects a car's chances of being stolen. But does this carry true in the US?