LSAT Explanation PT 28, S3, Q20: Game show host: Humans are no

LSAT Question Stem

Each of the following describes a flaw in the game show host's reasoning EXCEPT: 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The game show host concludes that humans are no better than apes at investing, as they do not attain a better return on their investments than apes do. This conclusion is based on a single experiment where five stock analysts and one chimpanzee were each given $1,350 to invest. After one month, the chimpanzee's net worth increased by $210, while the analyst who came in second increased their net worth by only $140.

The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: Five stock analysts and one chimpanzee were each given $1,350 to invest.

Premise: After one month, the chimpanzee's net worth increased by $210, while the analyst who came in second increased their net worth by only $140.

Conclusion: Humans are no better than apes at investing.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is the sample size and time frame of the experiment sufficient to draw a valid conclusion about the investment skills of humans and apes?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and the answer choices. The question type is a Flaw question, asking us to identify the answer choice that does NOT describe a flaw in the game show host's reasoning.

a) This answer choice points out that the conclusion about apes in general is drawn from an experiment involving just one chimpanzee. This is indeed a flaw in the argument, as it is not reasonable to generalize about all apes based on the performance of a single chimpanzee.

b) This answer choice states that no evidence is offered that chimpanzees are capable of understanding stock reports and making reasoned investment decisions. While this statement is true, it does not describe a flaw in the game show host's reasoning. The argument is about the return on investment, not the ability to understand stock reports or make reasoned decisions. Therefore, this answer choice is the correct one, as it does not describe a flaw in the argument.

c) This answer choice points out that a broad conclusion is drawn about the investment skills of humans based on the performance of only five humans. This is a flaw in the argument because it is not reasonable to generalize about all humans based on the performance of just five stock analysts.

d) This answer choice highlights that the conclusion is too general, as it is based on a single experiment involving short-term investing but not long-term investing. This is a flaw in the argument because it is not reasonable to draw a conclusion about the overall investment skills of humans and apes based on a single, short-term experiment.

e) This answer choice states that no evidence is considered about the long-term performance of the chimpanzee's portfolio versus that of the analysts' portfolios. This is a flaw in the argument because it is not reasonable to draw a conclusion about the investment skills of humans and apes without considering their long-term performance.

In summary, the correct answer is B, as it does not describe a flaw in the game show host's reasoning. The other answer choices all describe flaws in the argument.