Right Answer, Wrong Question

The LSAT test asks you specific types of questions in the Logical Reasoning section, and you will become extremely familiar with all of them. One way to trick you into the wrong answer choice is to offer you an answer that would be right for another question stem, but is wrong for the question at hand.

This article is the third in a series of articles explaining LSAT Logical Reasoning Wrong Answers. The series includes the following articles:

Right Answer, Wrong Question

How does the LSAT test trick you by offering the right answer for the wrong question? For example, the question asks you to weaken the argument. A tempting answer choice would be one that strengthens it. It seems right, it just isn’t right for a weaken question.

A good habit to pick up is to circle the key word in the question stem when you read it: weaken, strengthen, assumption, conclusion, etc. That helps you remember what type of answer you’re looking for, and if you do forget, the circle makes it easy to find the key word.

To keep from draining your brain entirely (which might prevent you from learning these wrong answer choices), we’re going to use the same argument we used in the last article. Reread it if you need to, and think about this new question: Which of the following, if true, would most significantly weaken the author’s argument?

Researchers at State University are teaching chimpanzees to communicate using sign language. For years the research continued largely without success. The researchers would reward the chimpanzees with food when they used the right gestures. The chimpanzees simply mimicked the researchers’ gestures in a sort of Pavlovian response. The researchers recently had a breakthrough. By adding emotional words and cues along with simple nouns, the chimpanzees seem able to grasp larger concepts and some even form simple sentences. This research proves that children raised in emotionally distant families have difficulty expressing themselves with language.

Remember the red flag? What is the connection between chimps and children in emotionally distant families. You’ll learn about weaken questions in much greater detail later, but the best way to weaken an argument is to attack its central assumption. To weaken this argument, you want to wave your red flag. You want to say, “hey, there is no connection between chimps and children in emotionally distant families.” Of course, if you find that prephrased answer among the choices, you should circle it and move on. But if you don’t, you can still eliminate the wrong choices without falling into their tempting traps.

The Right Answer at the Right Time

Consider the following answer choices for the above argument. All but one are the right answer for the wrong question.

(A)    Children raised in emotionally distant families cannot express themselves as well as children closer families.

Wow, that’s right out of the stimulus, so it must be right. Right? Wrong. That’s just what the test maker is hoping you’ll think. This is simply a restatement of the conclusion. It would be a fine answer choice for a “what’s the conclusion” question, but is a miserable choice for a “weaken the argument” question. If this is true, it supports the conclusion and thus actually strengthens the argument. 

(B)    Children in emotionally distant families learn to express language in much the same way that chimpanzees do.

Great, this one directly addresses the red flag, so it must be the central assumption. This is a great answer for a “what’s the assumption” question, but not good for a “weaken” question. In fact, by supporting the central assumption, it strengthens the argument. Right answer, wrong question.

(C)    Chimpanzees given emotional stimulus while learning language acquire a larger vocabulary than chimpanzees without emotional stimulus.

This simply repeats a premise in the argument. It’s in scope, so it might be tempting, but it doesn’t address the question. It doesn’t weaken the argument.

(D)   Only chimpanzees given emotional cues while learning language can express simple sentences.

There is a lot wrong with this question. First, the extreme word “only” takes us out of scope. Who knows? Taken as a whole, the chimpanzees were able to express simple sentences after getting emotional cues during learning. But there might be one really bright chimp who could do it before. Maybe chimps in another lab can express simple sentences after eating hot fudge sundaes. Furthermore, if this is true it would actually strengthen the argument. Right answer for a “strengthen” question, wrong answer for a “weaken.”

(E)    Chimpanzees are the only primate to require emotional cues when learning language skills.

Again, if this were the actual LSAT, you should just mark this answer as correct and move on-without ever reading it. You’ve already eliminated four answer choices. One of them has to be right, so it must be this one. This answer attacks the central assumption. It basically says that humans-and gorillas, and orangutans, and any other primate you can think of-do not need emotional cues to learn language like chimps do. This significantly weakens the argument.

In the next article, we’ll look at LSAT Contradictions and Distortions.