LSAT-99-06-03-20

mygoalusa

Game show hots: Humans are no better than apes at investing, that is , they do not attain a better return on their investment than apes do. We gave five stock anyalsts and one chimpazee $1350 each to invest. After on month, the chimp won, having increased its net worth by $210, the networth of the anlyst who came in second increaed by only $140.

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

A. A conclusion is drawn about apes in general on the basis of an experiment involving one chimp.

B. No evidence is offered that chimp are capable of understanding stock reports and making reaonsed investment decision.

C. A broad conclusion is drawn about the investment skills of humans on the basis of what is known about five humans.

D. Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment involving short term inveting but not long term investing

E. No evidence is considered about the long term performance of the chipm's portfolio's versus that of the the analyst's portfolio.

lawyer_1

ACDE point out that the example can not represent the whole picture of human and chimp. The conclusion just concerns the ability of humans and chimps to  gain return of investment and doesn not matter with how they gain the return. So B can not point out the reasoning flaw of the stimulus