LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningHard
A recent survey found that 80% of residents in City X believe that their local government is doing a 'good' or 'excellent' job. This is a significant increase from five years ago, when only 50% held the same view. Therefore, the quality of local governance in City X has substantially improved over the past five years. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion?
- AThe survey was conducted by a newspaper known for its critical stance on local government issues.
- BThe survey questions were phrased differently in the recent survey compared to five years ago.
- COver the past five years, a large percentage of dissatisfied residents moved out of City X.
- DOther cities in the region have also seen an increase in public satisfaction with their local governments.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Over the past five years, a large percentage of dissatisfied residents moved out of City X.
If a large portion of the dissatisfied residents left City X, then the increase in satisfaction among the remaining residents might not reflect an actual improvement in governance, but rather a change in the demographic of the surveyed population. This introduces an alternative explanation for the observed increase in satisfaction.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. If the newspaper is critical, it might suggest the survey results are *more* credible or surprising, not less. This would strengthen, not weaken, the conclusion.
- B. Different phrasing could certainly weaken the comparison, but 'a large percentage of dissatisfied residents moved out' offers a more direct and substantial alternative explanation for the observed change in reported satisfaction.
- D. This suggests a regional trend, which doesn't directly challenge the idea of improvement in City X, but rather suggests it's not unique. It doesn't weaken the *causal link* between implicit governance changes and satisfaction in City X.
Weakening a Causal Argument
To weaken a causal argument, one typically introduces new information that suggests an alternative cause for the observed effect, shows that the cause occurs without the effect, or that the effect occurs without the cause.
- Challenges the 'cause and effect' relationship.
- Often involves finding confounding variables.
- Can show the correlation is not causation.
Memory trick: Cause and effect? Check for the 'why' and the 'what if'!