Which reasoning is used when determining that Helen's test score of 690 prevents her from law school eligibility?

Which reasoning is used when determining that Helen's test score of 690 prevents her from law school eligibility?

• A. No Technique
• B. Causal Oversimplification
• C. Rationalization
• D. Wishful Thinking

Answer: (B)

The reasoning that Helen's test score of 690 prevents her from law school eligibility aligns with causal oversimplification because it involves the assumption that a single factor—her test score—is solely responsible for her ineligibility. Causal oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is reduced to one or two causes without considering other legitimate factors at play. In the context of law school admissions, various elements such as undergraduate performance, letters of recommendation, personal statements, and additional standardized tests or interviews may also influence eligibility. Focusing solely on the test score neglects the multifaceted nature of academic admissions processes, which take into account a broad spectrum of qualifications and experiences. Thus, this reasoning simplifies a complex decision-making process to a single cause, leading to an incomplete understanding of what determines law school eligibility.

The reasoning that Helen's test score of 690 prevents her from law school eligibility aligns with causal oversimplification because it involves the assumption that a single factor—her test score—is solely responsible for her ineligibility. Causal oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is reduced to one or two causes without considering other legitimate factors at play.

In the context of law school admissions, various elements such as undergraduate performance, letters of recommendation, personal statements, and additional standardized tests or interviews may also influence eligibility. Focusing solely on the test score neglects the multifaceted nature of academic admissions processes, which take into account a broad spectrum of qualifications and experiences. Thus, this reasoning simplifies a complex decision-making process to a single cause, leading to an incomplete understanding of what determines law school eligibility.