Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCorrelation vs. Causation

Linguist: An analysis of isolated indigenous languages reveals a striking pattern: languages that lack distinct grammatical markers for the future tense are overwhelmingly spoken by communities that exhibit exceptionally high savings rates and long-term economic stability. It has been hypothesized that the structure of a language shapes its speakers' worldview. Our findings confirm this hypothesis: by forcing speakers to grammatically treat the future as equivalent to the present, these languages subconsciously compel their speakers to prioritize future needs, thereby fostering economic prudence.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the linguist's reasoning?

  1. A
    draws a broad conclusion about the psychological effects of language structure based on a dataset restricted entirely to isolated indigenous communities
  2. B
    infers that because the vast majority of languages lacking future-tense markers are associated with economic stability, every language with this feature will inevitably produce economic prudence
  3. fails to adequately address the possibility that a community's preexisting cultural attitudes toward time might have caused both the linguistic structure to evolve and the specific economic behaviors to emergeAnswer
  4. D
    takes for granted that a grammatical feature that is sufficient to promote economic prudence is also logically necessary for a community to achieve long-term economic stability
  5. E
    relies on data regarding the rates of savings within certain communities to draw an unwarranted inference about the absolute total of wealth accumulated by those communities

Answer

The correct answer is the option pointing out that the argument fails to address whether preexisting cultural attitudes might have caused both the linguistic structure and the economic behaviors.
The argument's central flaw is assuming a causal relationship based entirely on a statistical correlation. The correct option identifies this by pointing out a 'third variable' or common cause: a preexisting cultural attitude toward time could independently be the reason the language evolved to lack future markers AND the reason the community saves money. By failing to rule out this alternative explanation, the linguist's causal conclusion is entirely invalid.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises of the linguist's argument.
The argument establishes a statistical correlation between languages lacking future-tense markers and communities with high savings rates.
Identifying the core evidence is the first step in evaluating logical reasoning.
2
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The linguist concludes that the grammatical structure of these languages actively causes the speakers to prioritize future needs and be economically prudent.
Understanding the exact claim being made is necessary to spot the structural flaw.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument jumps directly from a correlation (two phenomena occurring together) to a definitive causal claim (the language structure causes the economic behavior).
This logical leap is a classic vulnerability on the LSAT.
4
Identify potential alternative explanations for the observed correlation.
A third underlying factor, such as a community's foundational cultural values toward time, could have independently caused both the language structure to evolve and the economic habits to form.
Finding a viable alternative explanation directly exposes the flaw in the author's strict causal conclusion.
5
Select the option that best describes this flaw.
The option describing a failure to consider a preexisting cultural attitude as a common cause perfectly matches our evaluation.
This confirms the correct diagnosis of the argument's vulnerability.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic