Date: March 20th, 2017 10:45 AM
Author: Razzle psychic cumskin
Historian: One traditional childrearing practice in
the nineteenth century was to make a child who
misbehaved sit alone outside. Anyone passing by
would conclude that the child had misbehaved.
Nowadays, many child psychologists would
disapprove of this practice because they believe that
such practices damage the child’s self-esteem and that
damage to children’s self-esteem makes them less
confident as adults. However, no one disagrees that
adults raised under that traditional practice were, on
average, as confident as adults not so raised.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from
the historian’s statements?
(A)
The beliefs of many present-day child psychologists
about the consequences of loss of self-esteem are
incorrect.
(B) Some of the most confident adults, as well as some
of the least confident adults, were raised under the
traditional practice in question.
(C)
With the traditional childrearing practice, passersby
did not always make correct inferences about
children’s behavior by observing them outdoors.
(D) The most confident adults are those who developed
the highest level of self-esteem in childhood.
(E)
If children’s loss of self-esteem makes them less
confident as adults, then the traditional childrearing
practice in question did not tend to cause significant
loss of self-esteem.
SPOILER:
The correct answer starts with the first letter of the name of the world's largest land mammal.
But that answer is NOT properly inferrable from the statements above!
Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults. But, "no one disagrees that adults raised under the traditional practice, were, on average, as confident as adults not so raised."
The answer the LSAT calls "properly inferred" from the above is that at least one part of the causal chain asserted by the psychologists is incorrect. But this depends on 2 critical assumptions that are entirely unjustified and could easily have been described as flaws. First, just because "no one disagrees" about a statistic DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATISTIC IS TRUE. Second, EVEN IF THAT STATISTIC WERE TRUE -- that adults raised under the practice are on average as confident as adults not raised under the practice -- the correct answer IGNORES CONFOUNDING VARIABLES! Maybe the kind of child who is subject to the childrearing practice starts off with a higher self esteem than the children not so raised, so even though the practice does decrease self esteem, it doesn't make it lower than the other children on average. We'd need to know that the two compared groups -- those raised under the practice and those not so raised -- started off equal in the relevant areas -- self esteem and confidence level when they become adults.
Can someone please explain to me why the correct answer is considered to be 100% logical, to be "properly inferred" from the above?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558677&forum_id=2#32872640)