QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Parents probably aren’t right about the shows’ educational value, assuming the psychologists are correct.
REASONING: Parents judge educational value based on how much they like the shows.
ANALYSIS: This is almost a good argument. The conclusion is hypothetical: it describes what would be true if the psychologists were correct.
But, the conclusion didn’t show that the parents disagree with the psychologists. It’s possible they agree on which shows are the best, even if they formed their opinions for different reasons.
In that case, both the psychologists and parents would be right.
- There is no sample. This argument refers to all parents. An example of a sample would be ‘we looked at 1,000 parents, and therefore we know what all parents think’.
- The argument isn’t about what shows children will enjoy. It’s about what shows children will find educational.
- The conclusion is about whether the shows are educational. The argument isn’t about what shows children should watch.
- CORRECT. Parents and psychologists might agree, even if they use different methods to judge educational value.
- The argument didn’t say this. It implied that parents aren’t good judges, but that doesn’t mean that psychologists are the only good judges. It’s possible that school teachers are also good judges of a program’s educational value, for example.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly