magooshtravis wrote:
If the students were innately better, they would have been innately better before the chess program as well as after. In other words, their grades would have been strong beforehand, and yet their grades still went up after the program. That implies that the chess program had some sort of effect even for the brightest kids at the school, thus strengthening the argument.
B does say that there grades were strong beforehand. note that it talks "pre-program" level of achievement, not post-program.
magooshtravis wrote:
To answer your other question, I think "some" and "many" statements can influence a "most" statement, although it's uncommon. This question is an example of how they can. Most of the chess kids' grades went up, and the conclusion argues it's likely because of chess. The correct answer points out that at least some of those kids' grades went up for another reason. Thus, we have "some" weakening a "likely" conclusion about a "most" statement. Here's a parallel example:
Most apples that have been overwatered are unpopular with consumers. This is likely because the apples produce more sugar when it's hot and dry.
Answer choice: Studies have shown that the flesh of some apples deteriorates when it's exposed to too much water.
Notice how the answer choice doesn't disprove anything. It simply makes you wonder whether the overwatered apples suck because they haven't produced enough sugar or because their flesh has deteriorated.
In the same way, the correct answer choice here simply makes you wonder whether the students' grades went up because they learned how to play chess or because they studied harder to qualify for the chess team.
well the credited answer seems to support the bolded above. there are plenty of questions in lsat where a "some" statement would weaken a statement with definitive conclusion. but iirc there is an lsat question where a "some" statement
doesn't weaken a "many" statement. according to your explanation, it should also weaken a "many" statement. why only "most" but not "many"? if the metaphorical line where a statement begins to weaken is so subjective, the question item is not beyond dispute. and the reasoning for an lsat question item is typically beyond dispute.
also, never before any lsat question had a "some" answer weakening a "most" conclusion and that's why it stands out. christine defenbaugh's quote in my previous post also runs contrary to the bolded above. how do you square that with the bolded?
