Q23 - Researcher: Consumption of turmeric, a basic

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Consumption of turmeric probably slows cognitive decline.

Evidence: Curry is a basic ingredient in curries. A research team analyzed a database of information about cognitive function, ethnicity, and diet of elderly residents of Singapore. Those who ate curries regularly had higher scores on cognitive function tests than those who rarely or never ate curries. The relationship was strongest for folks of Indian ethnicity.

Answer Anticipation:
Correlation vs. Causation! Just because there's a correlation between curries and higher cognitive function doesn't mean curries preserve cognitive function. What's more, even if there is a causal relationship between curries and the preservation of cognitive function, it could be due to some other basic ingredient that curries share. There are lots of ways to strengthen an argument, so don't agonize over trying to predict which one the right answer will throw at you. Instead, know the problems in the argument and look for an answer that mitigates one of those problems.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
(A) A hypothesis isn't evidence, so this doesn't help prove the conclusion. Eliminate!

(B) A weakener! This answer gives us an alternate possible cause: Maybe instead of turmeric causing less cognitive decline, it's the level of education attained by the curry-eaters and the type of work and activites that educated folks engage in.

(C) So what? This doesn't help us prove that turmeric slows cognitive decline.

(D) Again, so what? These proportions about who's eating curry and how regularly just aren't relevant.

(E) Tricky! At first, this, too, might seem irrelevant. But in fact, this ties in the final line of the argument and makes it into a very strong premise. If it's true that Indian curries contain more turmeric than other curries, the fact that those of Indian ethnicity showed the strongest relationship between curry consumption and cognitive function gives strong evidence that the turmeric is cause of improved function. Bingo!

Takeaway/Pattern:
When a Strengthen question has a Causation Flaw, take the time to articulate it, even if you don't prephrase an answer. Stay flexible when evaluating answer choices, and remember that some strengtheners might seem irrelevant at first.

#officialexplanation

[TilP164]

I think E makes a lot of sense, but who is to say that people of Indian ethnicity must eat more Indian curry?

[ErikR367]

I think E makes a lot of sense, but who is to say that people of Indian ethnicity must eat more Indian curry?

Completely Agree, but its the best answer (most strengthens right)

And its not too much of a leap to make compared with all the others.

Keep in mind conclusion is: Turmeric slowing Cognitive Decline

A is irrelevant. Just because they predicted the results that doesnt mean they are right. Its kinda sketch actually.
B is a weakener, offering another explanation
C I think This is a premise booster. We are already told that higher scores come from regular curry intake. This doesnt lead us anywhere with turmeric.
D Explains why Singapore is testing well. *high curry*
E is hard to pick if you saw that assumption, but its the best answer.

[Misti Duvall]

Yeah, I also agree it's not the best strengthener ever, but that's the fun thing about Strengthen (and Weaken!) questions. For Strengthen, the answer only has to make the argument more likely, and it's only the best answer in comparison to the other answers. So if the right answer is not a great strengthener, but the other answers don't strengthen at all, it's still the correct answer.

[RaikaK711]

I disagree strongly. The answer, E, requires us to assume that Singapore residents of Indian ethnicity eat more Indian curry than others. If there was a sentence in the stimulus that states that people of a certain ethnicity tend to eat curry from that country, then the answer would make sense. But because there's no such connector, just because it connects to turmeric doesn't make this a strengthener. That's like if the question was something like,

Stimulus: Exercise improves overall health. Those who regularly played sports had better overall health. In a study, this was particularly true for those whose parents were soccer players.

Answer choice E: Soccer is a sport requiring strenuous exercise.

So? Just because the parents played soccer doesn't mean the child also did. That's a strong assumption. Similarly, here, just because they're of Indian descent doesn't mean they eat more Indian curry.

(I'm of Japanese ethnicity living in the U.S. I definitely do not eat more sushi than others; I dislike seafood. Even if I liked seafood, sushi here is more expensive than in Japan, so I might not eat that much sushi, as opposed to, say, those who are more financially well-off. There are so many factors that would prevent the assumption that because someone is of X ethnicity, I would eat X-specific food.)

I personally chose C, because it would explain why the relationship was strongest for Singapore residents of Indian ethnicity. Sure, it doesn't say anything about turmeric, but I thought it was better than making a huge assumption that those of Indian ethnicity eat more Indian curry than others in the study.

I kind of think this is also a little messed up for LSAT to think this was a reasonable assumption to make by test takers.

[Deleterious]

I think E makes a lot of sense, but who is to say that people of Indian ethnicity must eat more Indian curry?

To be fair, the correct answer doesn't say or imply this. The strongest statement you could make based on E is something like "as a group, elderly Indian Singaporians who regularly eat curry, on average, tend to eat more Indian curry than other ethnically similar groups of elderly Singaporians, on average, who also regularly eat curry."

[NikK887]

I would raise another doubt with E.
The whole statement is about the regularity of eating turmeric, not the amount. We cannot assume that eating a higher amount of turmeric also has a higher effect.