LR Question 23 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Some statisticians claim that the surest way…
QUESTION TYPE: Flaw
CONCLUSION: The statisticians are wrong.
REASONING: Their plan would mean we would have fewer and fewer beliefs. But we need many beliefs to survive.
ANALYSIS: The argument assumes that the statisticians thought people should actually try their plan or that people could survive using their plans.
The statisticians didn’t say that. They just said their plan was “the surest way to increase the overall correctness” of one’s beliefs. The plan might kill you but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best way to be sure your beliefs are correct.
___________
- CORRECT. Likewise, I could say that the best way to get warm is to jump into a fire. You’ll be badly hurt, but that doesn’t change the fact that it would be very effective at making you warmer. The statisticians might be correct even though their idea will hurt you.
- The statisticians are very clear: accept no new beliefs.
- This is fine. But the statisticians would say that the surest way to make either set more correct would be to eliminate beliefs without adding any.
- The argument didn’t say we should accept beliefs that we know are false. The argument seemed to be saying that we should accept new beliefs that we think are true. If we only reject beliefs then eventually we won’t have enough.
- The argument didn’t say that beliefs have to be correct. But if one followed the statisticians’ plan then one would eventually get rid of all incorrect beliefs and be left with too small a number.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.
Check out LSATHacks All Access
It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I really hope this is not a stupid question.
When I did this question, I initially went with B. (Sorry) I was between A and B but confused with A. In A the last sentence says “must not hinder one’s ability to survive” and I was thinking it should say must hinder…. I thought the person making the argument is saying the way the statisticians are telling us to increase our correctness will hinder our survival. So the word NOT was confusing me.
Then of course after I find out the answer; I notice reading between the lines would tell me I cannot accept new beliefs. I was assuming the argument was vulnerable because it doesn’t actually say you can not accept new beliefs. But I see it now. “Never change that set”
Can you explain why NOT should be there in A.
The issue here is that the person reporting the statisticians’ argument is making an added claim beyond the scope of that argument. The statisticians are just talking about ways to improve the overall correctness of one’s beliefs. The statisticians do not mention anything about whether or not this would be conducive to one’s survival, or if that’s even important. So, maybe the statisticians’ plan would not be conducive to survival, that does not necessarily suggest that it’s not the best way to improve the overall correctness of one’s beliefs. The author of the stimulus is saying:
The statistician’s plan would hinder survival
Therefore, the statisticians are mistaken.
So, the flaw is to presume that improving correctness must not hinder one’s ability to survive.
Graeme,
The question type for this explanation is wrong, this is a Flaw question from what I understand.
Also, isn’t (D) wrong simply because by following the statisticians’ plan you would not be able to accept any beliefs? The plan allows for only rejection or maintenance of your set of beliefs, not acceptance.
Yes, that’s correct, thanks for catching that. The page has been updated.
Remember, we’re not looking for what’s wrong with the statistician’s claim, we’re looking for the flaw in the author’s argument against the statisticians. So, we need to determine whether the author of the stimulus actually is doing what (D) says. The author isn’t saying we should accept just any belief (e.g. even when given against adequate it). The author is only saying that the statistician’s claim would lead to an undesirable set of circumstances, so we must follow some rule other than just that one of the statisticians.