The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best

Question

The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer
(C) draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
(E) draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

If you had problems here, you probably made a huge, unwarranted assumption: That Jennifer is  causally  related to her team’s success. Remember: Correlation does not prove causation!

Just because the team has happened to win every game Jennifer ever played in does not mean that the team is guaranteed to win the next game Jennifer plays in.

It’s quite possible, in fact, that Jennifer is the worst player in the history of sports. Imagine: Her coach only puts her in when the team is up by 30 points with 15 seconds to play. Jennifer instantly slam-dunks in the  opponent’s  goal the very second she is put into the game. Her team is now only up by 28. Then she steals the inbound pass from her own team and dunks in the wrong goal again—this time from the three-point line, while doing an NBA Jams-style 720-degree windmill. The net is on fire, the crowd is going berserk, LeBron James is on the sideline taking video of Jennifer with his iPhone. In five seconds, Jennifer has cost her team 5 points. But nobody can score 25 points in 15 seconds—so Jennifer’s team  still  wins every game she plays in.

A) The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Jennifer’s presence in the game is sufficient for her team to win. It is absolutely not. Jennifer’s team, in my example, wins despite her. This can’t be the answer.

B) The computer thing is a red herring. The argument’s main problem is that it assumes that any correlation that has held in the past will always hold in the future.

C) Again, the computer thing is a red herring. Also, the conclusion of the argument is not about computer analysis.

D) Bingo. As any shady mutual fund salesman won’t tell you (it’ll be buried in the fine print), past performance is no guarantee of future results. This answer points that out.

E) Like B and C, the computer thing is a distraction.

The best answer is D

moukthikavasa · Answer

The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result INCORRECT
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer INCORRECT
(C) draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case INCORRECT
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide CORRECT
(E) draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known INCORRECT

winterschool · Answer

The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A)  infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result   Correct

argument infers from computer analysis and information, possible flaw

(B) presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer  Incorrect

argument is not questioned about computer analysis

(C) draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case  Incorrect

argument is not concluded from single cases

(D) presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide  Incorrect

in past eagle lost game, but conclusion says that they will win game with Jennifer presence

(E) draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known  Incorrect

argument is not concluded only from computer analyses

ShreyaG7 · Answer

Hi  Bunuel

For this question, I was stuck between A & D for almost 2.5 minutes. I chose A because of the following:
- "factor" here is equivalent to the absence of Jennifer from the team
So, statement (A) says that Jennifer's presence (i.e. the absence of the factor) will result in the team "not losing". And isn't that precisely what the coach is basing his conclusion on?

Whereas, in D, it is not clear what the coincidence is because it says that in the absence of Jennifer the team lost. But it doesn't say that the team won. For all we know, the match might have been tied.

I went through other explanations, but I am still not able to understand why A is wrong. Hope you can help out!

KarishmaB  I hope that you can also help with this question.

KarishmaB · Answer

Note that Flaw in Reasoning questions expect you to use your own logic and reasoning. What would you say if someone presented you with this argument? The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win. The argument doesn't tell you that Jennifer is intrumental in every game and she single handedly makes them win, whenever she is present. It gives you a correlation - Jennifer's absence has coincided with losses always till now. At every loss, Jennifer was absent. Does it mean that the team lost because Jennifer was absent? No. Perhaps the team always wins on home ground but sometimes loses outside. Say Jennifer is not able to travel outside. Does it mean that if Jennifer starts travelling outside too, the team will win every match? No. The argument does not make sense without strong support for why the team wins when Jennifer is present and may lose when she is absent. Premises: The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Conclusion: Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win. (A) infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result We are given that according to the computer analysis, Jennifer's absence is necessary for losing. This factor is not given to be sufficient; it is given to be necessary. Besides, it is not given that it is a fact that 'Jennifer's absence is necessary for losing.' It is given that this is how it has happened till now. The two have coincided. We are given that the analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. This is what the analysis has revealed. We must take it to be true that both factors have coincided till now. But does it mean that it is a proven fact that the team will lose only when Jennifer will not play? No. This is not given as a fact. It may not continue in the future. (B) presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer Player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss is not discussed. Only the presence/absence of the player is discussed. (C) draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case No generic conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sport has been drawn. (D) presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide Exactly what makes sense. Just because the two coincided in the past, the argument is assuming that it must coincide in the future too. (E) draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known The conclusion drawn is about the value of Jennifer, not the value of computer analyses. Answer (D) Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

saikrishna96 · Answer

Option A starts with "infers" and implies that the argument infers from the evidence provided. However, the argument does not really takes into account the data from the computer analysis and is almost dismissive of the analysis. The argument concludes with a whimsical conclusion which confirms, without justification, that a particular correlation will continue in the future.

Option D: Notice the words "past" and "future", which coincides with the flaw in the conclusion. IMO D

Option D: Notice the words "past" and "future", which coincides with the flaw in the conclusion. IMO D

The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards