Q8 - A psychiatrist argued that

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: There so such thing as MPD.
Evidence: In all my years, I've never seen a case of MPD.

Answer Anticipation:
This flaw seems to just be "If I haven't seen it, then it doesn't exist!" In more fancy terms, we might say that the author is assuming the past is representative of the future, or that she's assuming that her clinical practice is representative of all psychiatric practices.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Very close! The only difference is that the conclusion is more moderate: "it seldom happens" vs. "it doesn't happen" in the original.

(B) Not the same type of personal-experience evidence.

(C) Pretty close, but this argument is "because something has rarely happened" vs. "because something has NEVER happened" in the original.

(D) This argument says "because it's always been this way, it will probably continue to be this way."

(E) YES! This says "because I haven't 'em, they don't exist!"

Takeaway/Pattern: This was a pretty straightforward one. The hardest part is staying vigilant about the strength of the claims so that we don't fall in love with a close-but-not-quite match along the way to (E). Continue to remind yourself what you're looking for before you address each answer choice.

#officialexplanation

[irene122]

I narrow down to A and E then choose E.

Is A flawed because of "seldom", a scope shift from "no such thing" in the stimulus?

It also arouses another question confused me for a while: does "rare" equal "seldom"? Do they refer to "none" or "a few"?

Could any one pinpoint the exactitude of the words above? Thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[demetri.blaisdell]

You are exactly right that there is a logical shift from "no such thing" in the stimulus to "seldom" in (A). In (A), Anton concludes that colds are rarely fatal. In (E), Jerod concludes that there are no deer in the area.

Generally speaking, seldom and rare mean the same thing: unusual, but not never. I haven't seen any questions on the LSAT that require you to use them as a basis for inferences, but don't get complacent.

If you have any further questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Demetri

[schwingrocker]

Is B incorrect because "no one" has seen groundhogs instead of just one person?

[jelgamal]

I have a problem with this question. The psychiayrist concluded that such does not exist...she didnt conclude thst it doesnt exist in " her area." while all the options involve a sectional rejection, rather than saying something does not exist or that deer doesnt exist in the absolute.

[asafezrati]

B - is it out since the idea of "never" wasn't mentioned?
E - in the light of the above poster - is it correct because the "most" in the question stem?

Thanks.

[liyidan]

This is a principle question, not a must be true question. Correct me if I am wrong.
I agree with the previous post that "key" in (E) is too strong, whereas (B) has some support. In a principle question, it is ok for the answer choice to use generalized language.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think this response is misplaced. It sounds like you're referring to a different question altogether, unless I'm mistaken.

To the previous poster, the problem with (B) is not the lack of "never".

No one's seen a groundhog basically means "no one's ever seen a groundhog in this area".

The key difference is that in the original, and in (E), only ONE person is saying "I've never seen one". In (B), you have the whole city essentially saying "I've never seen one".

That's stronger evidence than the original had. Plus, the author of (B) more sensibly concludes something softer: There are PROBABLY no groundhogs.

The original author, and Jerod in (E), conclude something certain:
- No such thing as multiple personality disorder
- There are no deer in the area