Top Law Schools

I suppose I would not be asking this question if the question stem were a most strongly supported. However, with this being a proper inference question, I feel I must ask.

This stimulus basically gives us a chain of reasoning used by some psychologists for their belief.

Practice ---> Damage Self-Esteem ---> Less Confident as Adults

The last sentence of this stimulus is what bothers me. We find out that the children raised under this practice were, on average, as confident as as adults not raised under this practice.

This, however, does not appear to give us enough information to warrant saying "~Less Confident as Adults" to invoke the contrapositive.

We know that the adults raised under this practice are, on average, as confident as adults not so raised, but that does not give us the justification to conclude that these adults are not less confident. I feel that this condition is one that is not relative to other adults, but is relative to themselves. In other words, these adults would have been more confident than they are now even though they are as confident as others not so raised.

Again, my problem originates in that this is a must be true stem instead of a most strongly supported. I could grant that this is somewhat supported, but not demonstrably provable.

.

For you to be able to state in your pre-phrase that the psychologists were wrong about the effects of this practice, you must have believed that the effect was not occurring.

My question to you is how are you determining that the effect was not occurring.

We would have to know that these adults raised under the practice are not less confident as adults. However, we only know the confidence that they have in comparison to others not raised in the practice. For us to be able to conclude that the adults raised under the practice are not less confident as adults, we would have to know the original confidence levels of these people. It may be true that the confidence levels of these adults were abnormally high, and now are only at the same level as those not raised under the practice. If this were true, then we cannot state "~less confident as adults." My example clearly shows that they are less confident as adults.

.

I have not seen that movie.

As for your question, that is not is my job to make that determination. I agree that it is unlikely that it is the case that 19th century parents were using this practice on abnormally confident children and that this practice brought them down to a "normal" confidence level.

However, although it is unlikely, it is still something that would ruin a must be true scenario, which is what a proper inference is, no?

If this were a most strongly supported question, I would not have made this thread.

Bump for further discussion of proper inference.

I'd say it's a legit issue with the question, but it's nevertheless undeniably the "best answer". Understand that LSAC will occasionally have minor hiccups with this kind of thing, but if the one you think is iffy is still by-far-the-best answer of the bunch, then...