Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of 9 year olds can

First note that the reasoning of the original argument is flawed. The reasoning of the correct option should be similarly flawed.

Most 9 year olds can correctly identify the logos of major cigarette brands.
However less than 1% of those who identified smoke.
Conclusion: There is little or no connection between recognition of cigarette brand logos and smoking.

What is the flaw? 9 yr olds are not allowed to/expected to smoke. So whether they know the brands or not will not tell us whether recognition and smoking are related. The point is the long term impact of recognition of brands. Are they more likely to smoke as adults? That will tell us whether recognition is related to smoking.

A) The concern about the long-term effects on dolphins of small quantities of mercury in the ocean is unfounded. During a three-month period, 1,000 dolphins were exposed to small quantities of mercury in seawater, with no effect on the animal.

This tells us that since no effect was observed during the 3 month period, there are no long term effects of Mercury. But this is flawed in the same way as our original argument. Only after many years will be come to know whether small amounts of Mercury have impact on dolphins or not.

D) A large percentage of men exercise moderately throughout their lives, but the average life span of tose who do so is not significantly greater than of those who get little or no exercise. So there is little or no correlation between moderate exercise and good health.

This logic is not flawed in the same way. If large % of men do exercise moderately throughout their lives and their avg life span is similar to those who do not exercise, then it seems that exercise has no impact on longevity. The problem is that the conclusion says that exercise has no correlation with good health. Now, lifespan and good health are not the same. What if men who exercise stay in good health throughout their lifespan but those who do not exercise suffer problems and take medications and are able to reach that lifespan but with struggle? So this argument is flawed too but in a different way.

Answer (A)

ill go for A...
in original argument ,a case of 9 yr old is taken to justify a pt .. similarly in A a gp of dolphin is taken to justify the effect on the entire species..

One more vote for D.

The problem I see with A is that, when 1000 dolphins were exposed to small quantities of mercury in sea water, none of them are effected. But the reasoning in the stimulus is stating that less thatn 1% are effected.

I will also go for D and wording in D also matches with question wording . I am suspicious that D may be wrong as this was quite obvious choice .

you were all right D is a trap answer

The correct answer choice is A.

The method of reasoning in the stimulus is a cause-effect relationship that is denied.

The flawed in reasoning is that you cannot extract that conclusion from nine-year-olds who cannot purchase their own cigarettes.

The problem with option D is that switches terms from the premise to the conclusion. The premise is about "average life span", but the conclusion is about "good health". Another problem is that this answer relates the group to an average ("average life span") whereas the stimulus related the group to a specific result ("smoking")

I think D is wrong because the reasoning behind D is not flawed.

A is correct because the reasoning behind A is definitely flawed.

A talks about long term effect and carries out the exp. for only 3 months.

Out of large sample, only 1000 are selected as though the 1000 from a representative sample.

generalizing the behavior of 9-year-olds to all humans is incorrect (selection bias)
But 1000 dolphins does not seem like a minuscule number.

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , ChiranjeevSingh, GMATGuruNY , VeritasKarishma , other experts-- please enlighten

Would anyone please explain the POE of E ?

Statement :

Many children -> identify logos

Those children -> Don't smoke

Option A :

Many dolphins -> exposed to small quantities of mercury

Those dolphins -> no effect of mercury on the animal

Option E :

Most People - > have adequate command of current political issues.

Those people - > Don't know the name their legislative representatives


Thanks in Advance .

If I may help:

There are two primary flaws in the main argument:
1. The argument is trying to a make a generalized statement from a selective group:
In case of option E, the argument considers "most people". So it has considered the entire group. For the option to be in contention, it could have mentioned a group of men in their 20s, or a group of people belonging to Arizona etc.

2. As explained by ChiranjeevSingh, the argument is trying to make long term predictions from short term results.
In case of option E, the argument is not making a long term prediction. It conducted the survey few months back and currently the concerned people do not know their representatives, but know the issues. There isn't a long term prediction!

Hope that helps!

Hi VeritasKarishma AndrewN

Please give your expert opinion on A vs D.

I choose D because: exercise has no effect on how long can u live
as given in argument: remembering logo no effect how much you smoke

Thanks!

Too strange that LSAT official ques has spelling error - "tose" instead of "those". Maybe error in posting by mikeCoolBoy

Tough question, does anyone have any tips for method of reasoning problems? I tend to focus on the wrong logic and hence get it wrong.

For this, agreed that the point of contention is time frame. But I focused on the sample and went with E. Appreciate the help.

GMATNinja could you help on this please. I couldn’t seem to rationalise the supporting answers above.

Posted from my mobile device

The question is about the misleading statistics and narrow vision. The majority knows the brands, but there is no correlation since less than 1% smoke. What if there is a correlation, but nine years is a short duration to measure that?

Option A is likewise the misleading statistics and narrow vision. Just that 1,000 dolphins did not show effects in three months, it's not right that mercury has no effect. What if the impact will start coming after a year?

Option D is more of a comparison error. The author assumes that the life span and good health mean the same.