A is correct according to LSAT? While the orignal question left out a) where the set of beliefs came from? As if beliefs are just there... And b) left out that during a life you add and lose beliefs, sharpen them etc etc.
We don't have LSAT in my country and i BELIEVE that's a good thng.
To compare: as our society feminized and in particular the Dutch education system, the budget doubled the past 2 decades to many, many B while the number of pupils decreased. There are 40.000 education 'consultants', (sic), countless teachers who became admins (more status, higher salary) and most teachers work part time. Because 1) the Dutch have a part time work culture and 2) teacher shortages have been 'countered' with ever higher salaries enabling ever more teachers to live comfortably from a few days work p week. Meanwhile kids can have one or two dozen teachers p year at unpopular schools ( = unruly schools with lots of mmigrant kids from all over the world).
And our once very high interational pupil-test scores keep declining every year.
A shrinking population is a very good thing, and the accepting of millions of "refugees" or illegals is just plain stupid.
As productivity improves and robotics/AI gets better, one should remember B Fuller's words from a century ago :
“We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.
We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” ~Buckminster Fuller
Unfortunately ALL the increases in productivity of the last 100 years have gone into the pockets of the bankers and rich, doesn't matter because Capitalism is a stupid ans self-destructive system [see K Marx for details] and is about to end. the Russian/ Chinese "socialism will become the norm and if you look at the towns and countryside of either and at the standard of living of both, you will see why this is something to be celebrated
“Through Russia comes the hope of the world. Not in respect to what is sometimes termed Communism or Bolshevism — no! But freedom — freedom! That each man will live for his fellow man. The principle has been born there. It will take years for it to be crystallized; yet out of Russia comes again the hope of the world.” ~
I picked B. I used a process of elimination and B seemed to make the most sense to me. My beliefs are constantly in question and to survive, all beliefs must be questioned from time to time. The only statistics I see is you have a 20% chance of guessing correctly.
I, too, guessed B. I did only average on the LSAT in the early '90s. My college had only 300 openings for 1,600 applicants. I am so happy I was only average. There is nothing I would like to do less in life than make my money off the misery of others.
Classic LSAT, great question tbqh. The red herring is the genuine philosophical dispute piled on top of "Wait, why are we talking about ability to survive?" Good for separating the (low, base) philosophers from the (blessed, enlightened) lawyers.
I guessed B since it appeared to be true and cleaner logic. But it’s awkward because how can something so basically subjective be objectively measured by its correctness?
The correct answer is indeed B. The LSAT is a test where you assume the premises presented in the hypothetical (the question) and deduce the answer. I have no idea how A could be used as the “correct” answer and frankly am skeptical that it was truly used for “correct” on the real test.
I guessed B because it was the least worse answer. I would seriously question becoming a lawyer if I took this test - it appears the thinking is bizarre/not logical but maybe that’s the kind of people they want.
Wow...when I took the LSAT decades ago, it was probably the; the best constructed standardized test I had taken...And no ridiculous, and irrelevant questions like this one....BTW, I would have answered B, so glad this question and silly answer wasn't on the test, in which I was one of the highest scorers in the US....
The framing of this mess of a question falls into the category of "not even wrong". My head hurt trying to wring out what the underlying logic was under the assertions.
Fantastic disection of the local vs universal truth distinction. The LSAT question conflates belief formation with belief revision in a way that makes the survival premise nonsensical. I ran into similar issues when trying to formalize epistemology models where the line between updating beliefs and forming new ones isn't as clean as test writers assume.
To add to what everyone has already said, the call of the question uses the awful ‘which of the following is [least][most] likely to be true’ format. Here, it is “the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” The problem with these types of questions is that they require an analysis that is usually beyond determining wether a proposition is true or false. What is “most” to me may be perceived as not very persuasive to someone else and that could be the case for a million reasons. Option (B) was clearly the best answer because it stated a truth that was overlooked by the hypothetical/argument and that true statement would destroy this silly hypothetical. I would guess that a great number of test takers (if not the majority) chose (B) (incorrectly according to LSAC). One would think that the answer that most people believe to be true would be the best one to convince others that the hypothetical/argument made above was wrong, and thus it would make it the best grounds to criticize it. Instead, the question is set up for the silly “assume everything above is true”, now use logic to choose the ‘best’ answer below. If we do that (which is a silly way to test logic by the way), then (A) is the best answer because we have to accept the silly propositions of the hypothetical, including that there is only “one rule” to be followed (which discards option (B) as criticism even though it is true). Option (A) responds to the “argument” made at the end of the hypothetical (“since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the… must be mistaken”) by saying that such argument has not been justified. Options (C), (D) and (E) likewise ignore the “argument” made at the end of the hypothetical and so are not the “best” answer. Standardized tests need to be set up for testing knowledge and logic, but not in a way that mixes both in a silly way like LSAT does.
Thank you. I must admit that when I read the question for the first time, I chose (B). It was not until I finished reading the entire blogpost and reflected on it, that I remembered how the LSAT actually works (it’s a silly test and it’s been a long time since I took it). Tangentially, this is why I don’t put too much emphasis on LSAT scores. Some say and would like it to be true that the LSAT reflects intelligence very well (to a degree it does). The problem is that the way it is designed makes it so that you can take a course and learn how to take the test. It’s true that you don’t need to study any substantive material for it, but you should definitely study how to take the test itself. Once you crack the code you learn that most questions basically test the same few things using different hypos. You also learn how to spot the same red herring answers.
"... you learn that most questions basically test the same few things using different hypos. You also learn how to spot the same red herring answers."
I agree.
It has been too many decades since my two bar exams (different states), but this indeed reminds me of the form/style of reasoning endemic to both the LSAT and law school. I do appreciate the sifting and winnowing necessary to get us to respected appellate justices, which, in my personal experience & belief, is who law schools believe that they are educating.
In contradistinction, effective counselors and advocates couple an innate ability with OJT, and the more OJT the more effective. Such is less amenable to multiple choice exams. YMMV :)
It hasn’t been that long since I took the bar exam (UBE) and although I have my issues with it (I know nothing about what the new UBE will be like), it at least tested real knowledge. Were there some bad questions? Absolutely, but overall it was a good standardized test. The LSAT instead is just silly hypos trying to test logic and reading comprehension. There are better ways to do that imho. I’m with you 100% that on the job training + natural talent and personality are what matter most in the profession.
As always, beautiful analysis. However, I must dissent (albeit) in a relatively small way.
You say "(D) Obviously nonsensical."
Actually, IMO it's not (entirely). As exemplified variously by the "survival" belief choices made by protagonists in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four", in his "Animal Farm", in WIlliam Golding's "Lord of the Flies". And in the survival belief choices made by many modern potential cancellation candidates, who choose to hunker down and pretend rather than face the victimizing ire of self-proclaimed victims. Or, indeed, join the ravening packs of victimizing pseudo-victims rather than risk themselves or their families. Of course you can redefine "survival" and/or "belief" to get around this, but it is submitted that just shifts the problem? (for example if you redefined survival as purely physical, I could point to people being gunned down by police as a partial consequence of their quixotic beliefs in the rule of law, which is *not* a new problem, or a racial / religious one, or even a jurisdiction-specific one)
[This point also might be extended to your earlier reference to the obviously true Microsoft heat-ray belief, which I must accept or risk cancellation - I also must ignore your suspicious skepticism, dangerous to the victims of the heat-rays via the Microsoft-proxy sun, otherwise I'd have to denounce you or be accused of complicity as a Briggs-running-dog]
Similar arguments might be made to defend your arguably over-dismissive response to "C"?
That said, of course I do get your point! In fact my own answer, before reading yours. was much simpler, perhaps broadly a generalization of yours: "the test stinks because, where all of the answers might be considered 'valid' from one perspective or another (though comically the perspectives are incompatible), it is impossible to identify a uniquely correct answer without addition of further premises and, where necessary, perspectives". If that is right, then your only real "mistake" is your peculiar attachment to logic.
Finally, though I've never been "exposed to the terrors of an [LSAT] auto-da-fe" (as de Tocqueville might put it), I have indeed faced the perils of multiple-choice "legal" questions in bar exams, though they were limited to civil [EDIT: I meant criminal as well] procedure and evidence subjects. These were always difficult, as usually there was only a single obviously wrong answer; the others being temptingly plausible, but (supposedly) one being the most "complete". Never even close to this, though!
Finally-finally, I should add my de Tocqueville reference as it illustrates 1830s cancel culture in America:
"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America... In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever steps beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe [1], but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth....
Under the absolute sway of an individual despot the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul, and the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose superior to the attempt; but such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved."
[1] Note "auto-da-fe" is the now-anachronistic term de Tocqueville uses for being burned at the stake for heresy. I can't imagine why it's gone out of style...
I guessed they wanted A because it was the longest and most deeply stupid answer ("deeply" as in would take the longest to explain why its wrong and would not be understood by stupid people).
As you pointed out, formation of beliefs has little to do with survival, which is why it’s a lousy legal argument. Which is what answer A is trying to convey - pointing out the absurdity of the premise is the point, rather than arguing about how beliefs are formed.
I think I see the value of the question now: to look for the fallacy, not to parse the sensibility of the question and then look for the most sensible answer; but to discover its most important weakness to exploit its wrongness which in this case is the presumption without justification that the most assured correctness of one’s total set of beliefs must have any imperative effect on one’s ability to survive
ChatGippity picked B. (I did, too, *only* on the basis that i accepted the question per se -- overall it's so poorly framed that it's not worth answering.)
After uploading the Q&A pics, i said pick the answer, and show any missing correct answers.
The argument attacks the statisticians’ rule by saying: *if you only reject beliefs when faced with evidence, you’ll end up with fewer and fewer beliefs, which threatens survival*.
But that critique **assumes** the rule only allows **rejecting** beliefs and **never accepting new ones**. That’s the weak spot.
**Choice B** nails that flaw:
> it *neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians' rule, one might also accept new beliefs when presented with some kinds of evidence*
Exactly. The rule as stated says *don’t change beliefs except to reject them when there’s evidence against them*—but it **never explicitly forbids forming new beliefs**. If new beliefs can be added, the “shrinking belief set → can’t survive” argument collapses.
---
### Why the other choices don’t work
* **A**: Survival isn’t the *goal* of the statisticians’ rule—*overall correctness* is. The argument doesn’t depend on claiming those must align; it just uses survival to attack the rule indirectly.
* **C**: The argument isn’t about large vs. small belief sets being more correct—it’s about *having too few beliefs to survive*.
* **D**: The passage never suggests keeping beliefs *despite* evidence against them.
* **E**: It doesn’t assume survival-related beliefs must be correct—only that some beliefs are necessary.
---
### Are any correct answers missing?
Nope 👍
This is a standard LSAT-style **“most vulnerable to criticism”** question, and **B fully captures the core assumption** the argument relies on. Nothing essential is left out, and no alternative answer competes once you see the “you can still add beliefs” point.
If you want, I can also:
* diagram the argument step-by-step, or
* show how to spot this kind of flaw faster on timed sections.
A is correct according to LSAT? While the orignal question left out a) where the set of beliefs came from? As if beliefs are just there... And b) left out that during a life you add and lose beliefs, sharpen them etc etc.
We don't have LSAT in my country and i BELIEVE that's a good thng.
We just have 11+ mainly because our kids are about 6 years smarter than the USA.
'smarter than the USA'
Kids are so stupid that teachers are quitting..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ath34Y5_uhw
To compare: as our society feminized and in particular the Dutch education system, the budget doubled the past 2 decades to many, many B while the number of pupils decreased. There are 40.000 education 'consultants', (sic), countless teachers who became admins (more status, higher salary) and most teachers work part time. Because 1) the Dutch have a part time work culture and 2) teacher shortages have been 'countered' with ever higher salaries enabling ever more teachers to live comfortably from a few days work p week. Meanwhile kids can have one or two dozen teachers p year at unpopular schools ( = unruly schools with lots of mmigrant kids from all over the world).
And our once very high interational pupil-test scores keep declining every year.
Meanwhile in China .....
"More than 13 million high school students in China have just completed a highly competitive national entrance exam.
Known as the “gaokao” - it involves years of preparation and is supposed to open the door to career opportunities.
But a slowing economy means passing the exam may not be enough anymore."
The CN economy may be slowing, the workforce serving that economy iis also shrinking.
In Europe, the only things not shrinking are debt the political problems ahead.
Why France Could Break The European Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AT7AJScZdA
A shrinking population is a very good thing, and the accepting of millions of "refugees" or illegals is just plain stupid.
As productivity improves and robotics/AI gets better, one should remember B Fuller's words from a century ago :
“We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.
We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” ~Buckminster Fuller
Unfortunately ALL the increases in productivity of the last 100 years have gone into the pockets of the bankers and rich, doesn't matter because Capitalism is a stupid ans self-destructive system [see K Marx for details] and is about to end. the Russian/ Chinese "socialism will become the norm and if you look at the towns and countryside of either and at the standard of living of both, you will see why this is something to be celebrated
“Through Russia comes the hope of the world. Not in respect to what is sometimes termed Communism or Bolshevism — no! But freedom — freedom! That each man will live for his fellow man. The principle has been born there. It will take years for it to be crystallized; yet out of Russia comes again the hope of the world.” ~
Edgar Cayce circa 1930
I picked B. I used a process of elimination and B seemed to make the most sense to me. My beliefs are constantly in question and to survive, all beliefs must be questioned from time to time. The only statistics I see is you have a 20% chance of guessing correctly.
I, too, guessed B. I did only average on the LSAT in the early '90s. My college had only 300 openings for 1,600 applicants. I am so happy I was only average. There is nothing I would like to do less in life than make my money off the misery of others.
Classic LSAT, great question tbqh. The red herring is the genuine philosophical dispute piled on top of "Wait, why are we talking about ability to survive?" Good for separating the (low, base) philosophers from the (blessed, enlightened) lawyers.
It is a great question because it is written so poorly, so as to help train (warn?) future lawyers.
I guessed B since it appeared to be true and cleaner logic. But it’s awkward because how can something so basically subjective be objectively measured by its correctness?
The correct answer is indeed B. The LSAT is a test where you assume the premises presented in the hypothetical (the question) and deduce the answer. I have no idea how A could be used as the “correct” answer and frankly am skeptical that it was truly used for “correct” on the real test.
I guessed B because it was the least worse answer. I would seriously question becoming a lawyer if I took this test - it appears the thinking is bizarre/not logical but maybe that’s the kind of people they want.
Wow...when I took the LSAT decades ago, it was probably the; the best constructed standardized test I had taken...And no ridiculous, and irrelevant questions like this one....BTW, I would have answered B, so glad this question and silly answer wasn't on the test, in which I was one of the highest scorers in the US....
I doubt that I scored as highly as you did, but I am nevertheless reassured as your post and rationale match mine exactly. 😊
The framing of this mess of a question falls into the category of "not even wrong". My head hurt trying to wring out what the underlying logic was under the assertions.
I don't answer stupid questions.
In a courtroom, you would risk contempt.
Often!!!
Fantastic disection of the local vs universal truth distinction. The LSAT question conflates belief formation with belief revision in a way that makes the survival premise nonsensical. I ran into similar issues when trying to formalize epistemology models where the line between updating beliefs and forming new ones isn't as clean as test writers assume.
To add to what everyone has already said, the call of the question uses the awful ‘which of the following is [least][most] likely to be true’ format. Here, it is “the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” The problem with these types of questions is that they require an analysis that is usually beyond determining wether a proposition is true or false. What is “most” to me may be perceived as not very persuasive to someone else and that could be the case for a million reasons. Option (B) was clearly the best answer because it stated a truth that was overlooked by the hypothetical/argument and that true statement would destroy this silly hypothetical. I would guess that a great number of test takers (if not the majority) chose (B) (incorrectly according to LSAC). One would think that the answer that most people believe to be true would be the best one to convince others that the hypothetical/argument made above was wrong, and thus it would make it the best grounds to criticize it. Instead, the question is set up for the silly “assume everything above is true”, now use logic to choose the ‘best’ answer below. If we do that (which is a silly way to test logic by the way), then (A) is the best answer because we have to accept the silly propositions of the hypothetical, including that there is only “one rule” to be followed (which discards option (B) as criticism even though it is true). Option (A) responds to the “argument” made at the end of the hypothetical (“since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the… must be mistaken”) by saying that such argument has not been justified. Options (C), (D) and (E) likewise ignore the “argument” made at the end of the hypothetical and so are not the “best” answer. Standardized tests need to be set up for testing knowledge and logic, but not in a way that mixes both in a silly way like LSAT does.
I very much appreciate the clarity with which you got to the answer "A".
It is a good exposition of "Read the question carefully."
But it's still sucks as a way of differentiating the qualities necessary to become a successful attorney.
Thank you. I must admit that when I read the question for the first time, I chose (B). It was not until I finished reading the entire blogpost and reflected on it, that I remembered how the LSAT actually works (it’s a silly test and it’s been a long time since I took it). Tangentially, this is why I don’t put too much emphasis on LSAT scores. Some say and would like it to be true that the LSAT reflects intelligence very well (to a degree it does). The problem is that the way it is designed makes it so that you can take a course and learn how to take the test. It’s true that you don’t need to study any substantive material for it, but you should definitely study how to take the test itself. Once you crack the code you learn that most questions basically test the same few things using different hypos. You also learn how to spot the same red herring answers.
"... you learn that most questions basically test the same few things using different hypos. You also learn how to spot the same red herring answers."
I agree.
It has been too many decades since my two bar exams (different states), but this indeed reminds me of the form/style of reasoning endemic to both the LSAT and law school. I do appreciate the sifting and winnowing necessary to get us to respected appellate justices, which, in my personal experience & belief, is who law schools believe that they are educating.
In contradistinction, effective counselors and advocates couple an innate ability with OJT, and the more OJT the more effective. Such is less amenable to multiple choice exams. YMMV :)
It hasn’t been that long since I took the bar exam (UBE) and although I have my issues with it (I know nothing about what the new UBE will be like), it at least tested real knowledge. Were there some bad questions? Absolutely, but overall it was a good standardized test. The LSAT instead is just silly hypos trying to test logic and reading comprehension. There are better ways to do that imho. I’m with you 100% that on the job training + natural talent and personality are what matter most in the profession.
As always, beautiful analysis. However, I must dissent (albeit) in a relatively small way.
You say "(D) Obviously nonsensical."
Actually, IMO it's not (entirely). As exemplified variously by the "survival" belief choices made by protagonists in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four", in his "Animal Farm", in WIlliam Golding's "Lord of the Flies". And in the survival belief choices made by many modern potential cancellation candidates, who choose to hunker down and pretend rather than face the victimizing ire of self-proclaimed victims. Or, indeed, join the ravening packs of victimizing pseudo-victims rather than risk themselves or their families. Of course you can redefine "survival" and/or "belief" to get around this, but it is submitted that just shifts the problem? (for example if you redefined survival as purely physical, I could point to people being gunned down by police as a partial consequence of their quixotic beliefs in the rule of law, which is *not* a new problem, or a racial / religious one, or even a jurisdiction-specific one)
[This point also might be extended to your earlier reference to the obviously true Microsoft heat-ray belief, which I must accept or risk cancellation - I also must ignore your suspicious skepticism, dangerous to the victims of the heat-rays via the Microsoft-proxy sun, otherwise I'd have to denounce you or be accused of complicity as a Briggs-running-dog]
Similar arguments might be made to defend your arguably over-dismissive response to "C"?
That said, of course I do get your point! In fact my own answer, before reading yours. was much simpler, perhaps broadly a generalization of yours: "the test stinks because, where all of the answers might be considered 'valid' from one perspective or another (though comically the perspectives are incompatible), it is impossible to identify a uniquely correct answer without addition of further premises and, where necessary, perspectives". If that is right, then your only real "mistake" is your peculiar attachment to logic.
Finally, though I've never been "exposed to the terrors of an [LSAT] auto-da-fe" (as de Tocqueville might put it), I have indeed faced the perils of multiple-choice "legal" questions in bar exams, though they were limited to civil [EDIT: I meant criminal as well] procedure and evidence subjects. These were always difficult, as usually there was only a single obviously wrong answer; the others being temptingly plausible, but (supposedly) one being the most "complete". Never even close to this, though!
Finally-finally, I should add my de Tocqueville reference as it illustrates 1830s cancel culture in America:
"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America... In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever steps beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe [1], but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth....
Under the absolute sway of an individual despot the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul, and the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose superior to the attempt; but such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved."
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, p771ff original Reeve translation, PSU (http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf). These sentiments as expressed by de Tocqueville naturally were censored from many print editions all the way up to my own printed copy, thus arguably proving his point! :)
[1] Note "auto-da-fe" is the now-anachronistic term de Tocqueville uses for being burned at the stake for heresy. I can't imagine why it's gone out of style...
It is for replies like these that are fully half the reason I read every Briggs post!
I guessed they wanted A because it was the longest and most deeply stupid answer ("deeply" as in would take the longest to explain why its wrong and would not be understood by stupid people).
As you pointed out, formation of beliefs has little to do with survival, which is why it’s a lousy legal argument. Which is what answer A is trying to convey - pointing out the absurdity of the premise is the point, rather than arguing about how beliefs are formed.
The setup makes little sense. As far as legal arguments go, it stinks.
I think I see the value of the question now: to look for the fallacy, not to parse the sensibility of the question and then look for the most sensible answer; but to discover its most important weakness to exploit its wrongness which in this case is the presumption without justification that the most assured correctness of one’s total set of beliefs must have any imperative effect on one’s ability to survive
I don't remember such a question when I took the LSAT in 1976 (thankfully). Fortunately, I decided I'd rather go to Heaven than be a lawyer.
ChatGippity picked B. (I did, too, *only* on the basis that i accepted the question per se -- overall it's so poorly framed that it's not worth answering.)
After uploading the Q&A pics, i said pick the answer, and show any missing correct answers.
Below the bar is the answer.
##########################################################################
I’d pick **B** — and pretty confidently.
### Why **B** is the best answer
The argument attacks the statisticians’ rule by saying: *if you only reject beliefs when faced with evidence, you’ll end up with fewer and fewer beliefs, which threatens survival*.
But that critique **assumes** the rule only allows **rejecting** beliefs and **never accepting new ones**. That’s the weak spot.
**Choice B** nails that flaw:
> it *neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians' rule, one might also accept new beliefs when presented with some kinds of evidence*
Exactly. The rule as stated says *don’t change beliefs except to reject them when there’s evidence against them*—but it **never explicitly forbids forming new beliefs**. If new beliefs can be added, the “shrinking belief set → can’t survive” argument collapses.
---
### Why the other choices don’t work
* **A**: Survival isn’t the *goal* of the statisticians’ rule—*overall correctness* is. The argument doesn’t depend on claiming those must align; it just uses survival to attack the rule indirectly.
* **C**: The argument isn’t about large vs. small belief sets being more correct—it’s about *having too few beliefs to survive*.
* **D**: The passage never suggests keeping beliefs *despite* evidence against them.
* **E**: It doesn’t assume survival-related beliefs must be correct—only that some beliefs are necessary.
---
### Are any correct answers missing?
Nope 👍
This is a standard LSAT-style **“most vulnerable to criticism”** question, and **B fully captures the core assumption** the argument relies on. Nothing essential is left out, and no alternative answer competes once you see the “you can still add beliefs” point.
If you want, I can also:
* diagram the argument step-by-step, or
* show how to spot this kind of flaw faster on timed sections.