LSAT 34, Logical Reasoning I, Q9

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: It was the difference in methods that caused the two reports to find different results.

REASONING: There is no reasoning given to support the conclusion. 

ANALYSIS: This is a very bad argument. Different methods shouldn’t automatically lead to different results. If the methods are accurate then it is quite possible for different methods to find the same result. 

Suppose we want to find out what time the movie is playing. I call the theatre. You check the internet. Your friend checks the paper schedule he picked up at the theatre. All three methods should find the same result.

A difference in method doesn’t explain anything. 

___________

1. The stimulus did clearly distinguish between the two reports. It even noted that they got different results.
2. The purpose of the investigation is not mentioned. But the doesn’t doesn’t say anything to indicate that he thinks the method of an investigation is the same thing as a purpose.
3. It’s actually possible that both studies used a terrible method.
4. CORRECT. There is no reason that different methods should automatically lead to different results. 
5. The studies looked at the average workweek in the same period. Lots of changes surely occurred, there’s no reason to focus on economic conditions. If both studies were properly conducted they would have found the same change in hours worked. 

---

Need help with LR? → Sign up here

Try the LSAT Hacks Course

Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly