Top Law Schools

Question:

Psychologist: Some astrologers claim that our horoscopes completely determine our personalities, but this claim is false. I concede that identical twins-who are, of course, born at practically the same time-often do have similar personalities. However, birth records were examined to find two individuals who were born 40 years ago on the same day and at exactly the same time-one in a hospital in Toronto and one in a hospital in New York. Personality tests revealed that the personalities of these two individuals are in fact different.

Which of the following is a assumption on which the psychologist's argument depends?


What I think is the flaw that the argument depends: The author fails to consider is that there could be a environment/cultural aspect that influences one's personality. That is the cultural and environmental aspects are to blame for the personality differences.

The LSAT Trainer: Do we know that two people born at the same time have the same horoscope?We don't. The author does not actually show that the individuals in his example have the same horoscope. (My take. We do know that the individuals have the same horoscope. If your born in New York and Toronto at 3:45PM on July 5th, then yes both individuals are Cancers. Toronto and New York have the same time zone. Yes, it was not stated that people only need to be born on the same day and same time to have the same horoscope. However, it seemed in this example to be obvious that they would. Therefore, the flaw isn't who has what horoscope, but what personality differences could arise from being born in different locations.

OMG I JUST FIGURED IT OUT, I THINK. THE QUESTION STEM IS ASKING WHAT ASSUMPTION DOES THE ARGUMENT DEPEND, IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK. SO IF I SAY THE TWO INDIVIDUALS HAVE DIFFERENT HOROSCOPES, IT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES AND THEN IT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE AUTHORS CONCLUSION THAT THE ASTROLOGERS CLAIM IS FALSE. (Is this how I should have approached the question? I'm assuming so now lol)

**I guess I answered what the author failed to consider, but it was not enough for the argument to fall short. However, I should have thought about what the author took for granted in making his argument.**

I guess it took me writing it out to discover how I messed up.

lillawyer2 wrote:The author fails to consider is that there could be a environment/cultural aspect that influences one's personality. That is the cultural and environmental aspects are to blame for the personality differences.

Actually, that's presumably (though not certainly) what the psychologist is arguing.

The psychologist is saying, "look, two people born at the same time have different personalities, the astrologers say that two people with the same horoscope have the same personality, therefore the astrologers are wrong."

Clearly there's a bit of a jump between these two bolded statements, and you need something else to make sure they match up. That's the missing assumption.

RZ5646 wrote:

lillawyer2 wrote:The author fails to consider is that there could be a environment/cultural aspect that influences one's personality. That is the cultural and environmental aspects are to blame for the personality differences.

Actually, that's presumably (though not certainly) what the psychologist is arguing.

The psychologist is saying, "look, two people born at the same time have different personalities, the astrologers say that two people with the same horoscope have the same personality, therefore the astrologers are wrong."

Clearly there's a bit of a jump between these two bolded statements, and you need something else to make sure they match up. That's the missing assumption.

Yes! When you lay it out like that it became obvious that the author didn't connect that both individuals had the same horoscope, in order to conclude that the astrologers are wrong.

I have to do better extracting the flaw. I was misled or I misled myself.

lillawyer2 wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:

lillawyer2 wrote:The author fails to consider is that there could be a environment/cultural aspect that influences one's personality. That is the cultural and environmental aspects are to blame for the personality differences.

Actually, that's presumably (though not certainly) what the psychologist is arguing.

The psychologist is saying, "look, two people born at the same time have different personalities, the astrologers say that two people with the same horoscope have the same personality, therefore the astrologers are wrong."

Clearly there's a bit of a jump between these two bolded statements, and you need something else to make sure they match up. That's the missing assumption.

Yes! When you lay it out like that it became obvious that the author didn't connect that both individuals had the same horoscope, in order to conclude that the astrologers are wrong.

I have to do better extracting the flaw. I was misled or I misled myself.

Admittedly it's kind of a dumb/tricky question because I think the people in question would actually have the same horoscope because the same planets would be in the sky or whatever, but I guess that's an example of how you have to work strictly with what is given and not import any outside information into the question, even if it's accurate and relevant.

RZ5646 wrote:

lillawyer2 wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:

lillawyer2 wrote:The author fails to consider is that there could be a environment/cultural aspect that influences one's personality. That is the cultural and environmental aspects are to blame for the personality differences.

Actually, that's presumably (though not certainly) what the psychologist is arguing.

The psychologist is saying, "look, two people born at the same time have different personalities, the astrologers say that two people with the same horoscope have the same personality, therefore the astrologers are wrong."

Clearly there's a bit of a jump between these two bolded statements, and you need something else to make sure they match up. That's the missing assumption.

Yes! When you lay it out like that it became obvious that the author didn't connect that both individuals had the same horoscope, in order to conclude that the astrologers are wrong.

I have to do better extracting the flaw. I was misled or I misled myself.

Admittedly it's kind of a dumb/tricky question because I think the people in question would actually have the same horoscope because the same planets would be in the sky or whatever, but I guess that's an example of how you have to work strictly with what is given and not import any outside information into the question, even if it's accurate and relevant.

I see. I haven't gotten that aspect solidified yet. I appreciate the help!!