LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 2, Question 16
Parallel ReasoningArgument structure
The results don't prove that education improves math skills
The results show a correlation between higher education levels and better math skills. It's possible that this is because students who start out with better math skills tend to move on to higher education levels.
Explanation
This is a valid argument. The author gives a correlation between higher education levels and better math skills but then says that we cannot conclude that education improves math. They provide evidence by saying it's possible the inverse causal relationship exists: better math skills lead people to reach higher educational levels.
So we're looking for an argument that gives a correlation but then says that A may not have caused B, because it's also possible that B may have caused A.
Answer choices
This argument is logical but for different reasons than the stimulus. This argument doesn't give a correlation at all, it says that the quality of papers actually differs widely across universities. Then it concludes that we can't be sure if the education at the schools is different because the study may have been flawed.
This gives a correlation between better performance and professional athletes. But the author cautions against concluding that being a professional athlete causes increased performance, because the inverse could be true: better performance could be causing people to become professional athletes.
There's no correlation in this answer choice. It says that students from prestigious schools often get good jobs, not that they get them more or less often than students from other schools. And then it doesn't conclude that the prestigious schools cause students to get good jobs, just that the students may not be prepared for their jobs.
This argument does give a correlation, and concludes that A may not cause B, but the reasoning is different from the stimulus. In the stimulus the argument said that A may not cause B because it's possible that B causes A, here they just say that a lot of people without law degrees weren't included in the survey. They don't point out that B could cause A in this answer choice.
There's no correlation here, and there's no indication about the viability of causal relationships. This answer choice is just indicating that people who are gifted at higher mathematics may or may not be good at arithmetic.