LSAT 129 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Studies show that individuals with a high propensity for

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Business schools can make their students behave ethically if they discourage risk taking and encourage people to desire social acceptance.

REASONING: Desiring social acceptance is correlated with having more ethical principles, which is correlated with more ethical behavior.

Risk taking is negatively correlated with having ethical principles. Having fewer ethical principles is correlated with less ethical behavior.

ANALYSIS: This argument seems plausible, but really it’s just a causation-correlation error. This is one of the deadliest errors because our brains are wired to automatically fall for it.

Since this is a flaw question, we merely need to point out that the evidence was only a correlation.

___________

1. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: Most people I know aren’t famous. So nobody is famous.
2. The argument didn’t say that we should promote ethical behavior. The author only argued that businesses could promote ethical behavior (if they want to). On the LSAT there is a strict separation between what you can do and what you should do.
3. CORRECT. Despite the lengthy argument, the author has provided nothing more than a correlation. Correlation can never prove anything.
4. This is a different flaw. Public opinion can never prove what’s actually true. But the argument didn’t cite public opinion.
   Example of flaw: Most people think it’s bad to join a circus. So it’s bad to join a circus.
5. This describes circular reasoning. That is a very rare flaw, because it literally means saying the same thing you said.
   Example of flaw: Colleges can promote ethical behavior by discouraging risks, because discouraging risks will promote ethical behavior.