how to deal with the question from PT #19section2,23? Forum

[ekamy]

the 23rd question is about the museum director selling paintings, the correct answer E is kind of hard to interpret, is anyone could explain it further?
Actually there is another question in #19 section 4, 6th . the question is about VCRs and movie theaters. the correct answer C says that the argument "fails to establish that the phenomena interpreted as cause and effect are not both direct effects of some other factor." it implies that the argument thought the phenomena is direct effects of some other factor. what's the "some other factor" in the argument? Can you feagure it out?

Thank you for your explaination!

[Jack Smirks]

If I had the actual questions I could give it a shot.

[JJDancer]

I know this is late but I'll reply.
Also you should have posted this in the LSAT Prep/Discussion forum.

#23 - the critics say that the museum is not being a trustee for art by selling famous paintings to finance ones that the museum director thinks are better. Then the author somehow says that these paintings being resold soon after for double/triple the price means that the critics were right in condemning the sale/saying that they lost great art/didn't fulfill duty as trustee.

This doesn't seem quite right. Why not?
A) is wrong because he doesn't say "90% of art critics" or give any number comparisons.
B) is wrong because he ACCEPTs the experts view, not rejects it.
C) is wrong because there is no proven means of accomplishing an objective presented
(the museum director doesn't prove why selling them is the only way to be a trustee for art or to afford the new paintings)
D) is wrong because it doesn't speculate about future affairs...it looks at the present (paintingsbeing resold for higher) and passes judgments on the past.

E is the only one left. The critics use the facts to conclude something but it's not certain that that conclusion is the only/obvious result of those facts.

[JJDancer]

section 4, number 6 says
people who own VCRs go to movie theaters more than people who don't own VCRs.
THEREFORE: owning a VCR MAKES you go to the movies more than they otherwise would.

This is faulty reasoning because all we know is that there is a HIGHER CORRELATION with people who have VCRs going to the movies.
What if I told you people with money are more likely to go on cruises than people with less/no money. THerefore, having money causes you to go on a cruise. Noo...what about people who have $$ but don't go on cruises. And money probably just allows them to go on cruises but don't CAUSE it.

Now people who own VCRs go to movie theaters more than people who don't own VCRs.
This could even be presented as a "explain the discrepancy" question meaning
people who own VCRs go to movie theaters more than people who don't own VCRs. (even though they could just watch movies for less money at home..)
SO what could explain this? well a) they love movies and don't want to wait for it to be out on video so they go to the movies too
b) people who dont own vcrs don't care as much abt movies so they go to see them less

Similarly C says the argument "fails to establish that the phenomena interpreted as cause and effect are not both direct effects of some other factor."
So the cause is owning a vcr and the effect is going to the movies more than people who dont own vcrs but they could in fact BOTH be the effect of a) people who love movies are more likely to own a vcr and more likely to go to the theater - so the REAL cause is loving movies. or
b) they have more money/are able to afford it (those w $$ can afford a vcr and can afford going to the movies more