Q1 - A study comparing infant care revealed

[WaltGrace1983]

No love for this one, eh? I actually think this is a deceptively tricky question because, oftentimes, when we strengthen/weaken an argument, we are focused on correlation/causation issues. When such issues arise, we are usually asked about them. This is, at least as I have seen, a really pivotal part of strengthen/weaken questions. However, this one actually takes the correlation/causation as a given. The argument instead makes a value judgement and if you don't know what the task is you can very easily mistake this for weaken a causation from a correlation.

So do NOT understand the argument as the following...

Babies with less stimulating daytime routine slept 2 hours more on average
→
Amount of stimulation babies receive affects their sleep

That is NOT the argument, although it is very tempting to jump immediately to the correlation/causation mindset. Instead, understand the real core as follows...

Sleep plays a very important role in a child's development
→
Parents would be wise to reduce amount of stimulation their babies receive

This is a weaken question so we have to weaken the conclusion that "it would be wise" from the premises that sleep is important. The first thing that should pop into your head should be a thought like, "Well just because sleep helps a baby develop and reducing stimulation induces more sleep (remember that we are taking the correlation/causation as fact), is it wise to induce more sleep? Maybe too much sleep can have this benefit but also a detriment." With this in mind, and considering that this is question #1, let's move on.

(A) This actually strengthens. Why? Because "muscular coordination" is an aspect of baby development and (A) shows that it is unaffected regardless of stimulation. In other words, it rules out one possible detriment of reducing stimulation. It is a very weak strengthener, but a strengthener nonetheless.

(B) Premise Booster. We already know this as we are told that "less stimulating daytime routines → sleep avg of 2 hours more." According to the argument, this is just plain fact.

(C) Out of scope. Tricky! This is the kind of answer choice that I was talking about. We don't need to weaken the correlation/causation! This essentially does weaken the correlation/causation (although three year olds and babies might not be comparable) but that is not our task! We want to answer the question, "is it wise to reduce stimulation?" and we want our answer to be "maybe not!"

(D) Strengthens. This is very similar to (A) because it also rules out a possible detriment to reducing stimulation. While "gaining weight" and "development" may not be absolutely the same thing, for the purposes of this question I think we can make that deduction. From this answer choice, we know that weight gaining is not affected! Great! This is just one more reason why reducing stimulation might be okay! This, however, is obviously the opposite of our task.

(E) Weaken! Ding ding ding! We want to weaken the claim that "it is wise to reduce stimulation" but (E) says, "whoa! hold on a second! stimulation in itself helps the babies develop intellectually!" This doesn't completely refute the argument - and it doesn't need to - but it calls into question whether or not we really should reduce stimulation because, after all, stimulation can be a really good thing for development too!

Overall, I think that this really is one of better LSAT questions I have seen and I am a bit surprised no one commented on it. I think its great just because of that sneak attack, putting correlation/causation language in the stimulus and not testing on it. Hope this helps!

[moriah.cenance]

Why wouldn't gaining weight be seen as a negative consequence for the baby as a result of little stimulation?

[tommywallach]

Weight gain is a positive when it comes to raising babies; it's only a negative in the wacky world of adults who want to look good in swimsuits!

-t

[LeonC641]

Hi WaltGrace1983,
I was tricked by this one, and I was thinking where did my thought process go wrong for quite a while. Your explanation clears up this question completely! Thank you for your great explanation.

[EmilyL849]

Hi,
I am not sure if my reasoning is correct.
__________________________________________________________

Babies sleep less if they get more stimulation.
(Babies would sleep more if they get less stimulation)
Sleeping is important for a child's development.

C: Parents should reduce the amount of stimulation.
(Assumption: Stimulation caused less sleep)

Weaken:
- Something else caused less sleeping
- Stimulation is good for the babies for other reasons

I got the answer correct, but few answer choices are not too easy to get rid of

(A) If muscular development is unaffected by the amount of stimulation, and muscular development seems to be a part of a child's development, wouldn't this answer choice weaken the conclusion by showing that

"Whether or not a baby gets more or less stimulation" -> Muscular development (a part of child's development) is not affected.
(Cause or no cause -> No effect)

If so, parents would not need to reduce stimulation, so that a child can get more sleep for the sake of development.

(D) the same goes.
Weight gain, a part of development, is not affected. Then why should parents restrict stimulation?
(Cause or no cause -> No effect)

Doesn't that weaken the conclusion that parents SHOULD reduce stimulation?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

As you said, the author is assuming that more stimulation caused less sleep.
And the author has established that sleep is very important developmentally (although she didn't specify in what way).

The author doesn't need to assume that stimulation itself does anything good or bad developmentally. As long as stimulation causes less sleep (as she's assuming), then she's good.

Sleep is locked in as having developmental value.

I think you're liking (A) and (D) because they say "stimulation doesn't have an effect on THIS ASPECT of development".

But in both cases, the author would be like, "Cool. I know stimulation has nothing to do with developing muscular coordination or gaining weight. Stimulation (I believe) decreases sleep, and sleep plays an important role developmentally."

Sleep could be playing an important role with a child's neurological/cognitive development.
If stimulation is causing less sleep, which in turn causes worse neurological development, then the author's argument is still sensible.

She doesn't need stimulation to affect every different aspect of a child's development.

Meanwhile, (E) is an interesting correct answer in that it doesn't address whether or not the causal assumption about more stimulation -> less sleep is valid. It just introduces a competing concern: "Even if less stimulation led to more sleep, which would help developmentally, less stimulation would also lead to less intellectual development, so it's not as easy to say parents would be wise to reduce stimulation."

Hope this helps.

[Jasper123]

Before going to the answer choices, I reasoned that one flaw in the argument was that the author drew a conclusion about a broader population than was warranted. The effects of stimulation on hours of sleep were observed "at six months of age." So I thought, ok let's accept the stated relationship as true, "At 6 months of age, it's true that stimulation affects sleep in X ways", or "at 6 months, we see X happen", fine. But I make no assumptions about whether the relationship still exists at say, 11 months. Maybe at 11 months babies will sleep an average of Z hours regardless of stimulation level - I don't know.

"Since sleep plays a very important role in a child's development, parents would be wise to reduce the amount of stimulation their babies receive." Parents in general, as in of all "babies" ? Does that include 11 month babies? As far as I'm concerned the premise that I accepted earlier is not necessarily applicable to all babies.

I understand why E is right. But here's a question, replace "3 years of age or older" with "7-11 months " in answer choice C, you get "Studies showed no correlation between stimulation and amount of sleep for babies 7-11 months" -- does that weaken the argument?