I was debating between B and E, and finally choose E. Can someone explain why E is wrong? Thank you. I was also trying to use casual chain in this question, but leads me to nowhere.
Premise: refusing to think about problems-->more gum disease
Stress-->aggravate/suppress immune system
Conclusion: aggravate/suppress immune system-->gum disease
Thank you!
LSAT Forum
9 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- cyt5015
-
Thanks Received: 6
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 75
- Joined: June 01st, 2013
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q10 - A recent study
Very interesting question cyt5015!
One tweak I'll make to your core breakdown, though, is that the premise only tells us that 'refusing to think about problems' is correlated with gum disease, not necessarily that one causes the other. The author is assuming that 'refusing to think about problems' causes gum disease, and that it does so indirectly. But that's not all the author is assuming!
The premises give us two unconnected pairs:
1) refusing to think about problems ~ gum disease, and
2) stress --> suppression of immune system
In the conclusion, suddenly we're leaping to a connection between the two pairs - immune system and gum disease. In order to make that even remotely possible, we need to assume some pre-existing connection between the two pairs. A connection between the other two elements (stress and 'refusing to think about problems') could do the trick.
At first glance both (B) and (E) seem potentially helpful. But only (B) connects the causal chain in a way the author intends: If refusing to think about problems causes stress, and we know that stress suppresses the immune system, and we know that refusing to think about problems eventually leads to gum disease, then it makes more sense to make that final causal leap at the end of the chain from 'suppression of immune system' to 'gum disease'!
The entire causal chain would look like this:
refusing to think about problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system --> gum disease
(E) gives us a different relationship. We might interpret this as "stress causes refusing to think about problems". If this were assumed, then stress leads to two things at once: suppression of immune system AND refusing to think about problems. Since the author is assuming that refusing to think about problems causes gum disease, the causal chain (without the conclusion) would look like this:
Stress --> refusing to think about problems --> gum disease
\__> suppression of immune system
In this case, even with this assumption, there's no reason for the author to conclude any connection between the gum disease and the suppression of the immune system.
Let's take a quick look at the other wrong answers as well:
(A) if painful conditions (like gum disease) interfere with a person's ability to address problems quickly and directly, that would undermine the assumption the author makes about the direction of the causal relationship between gum disease and 'refusing to think about problems' - it reverses the direction!
(C) If stress causes people to address things quickly and directly, and stress also causes the suppression of the immune system, then it is LESS likely that immune suppression would cause gum disease (since that's correlated with NOT addressing things quickly and directly!).
(D) If quick/direct people seek out dental care fast, that supports the author's assumption that 'refusing to think about problems' causes gum disease. However, it undermines the assumption the author makes that it must cause it indirectly. We don't need this to be true to support the conclusion the there's a causal connection between gum disease and immune suppression - in fact, it's damaging.
I hope this helps clear things up a bit on a challenging question!
One tweak I'll make to your core breakdown, though, is that the premise only tells us that 'refusing to think about problems' is correlated with gum disease, not necessarily that one causes the other. The author is assuming that 'refusing to think about problems' causes gum disease, and that it does so indirectly. But that's not all the author is assuming!
The premises give us two unconnected pairs:
1) refusing to think about problems ~ gum disease, and
2) stress --> suppression of immune system
In the conclusion, suddenly we're leaping to a connection between the two pairs - immune system and gum disease. In order to make that even remotely possible, we need to assume some pre-existing connection between the two pairs. A connection between the other two elements (stress and 'refusing to think about problems') could do the trick.
At first glance both (B) and (E) seem potentially helpful. But only (B) connects the causal chain in a way the author intends: If refusing to think about problems causes stress, and we know that stress suppresses the immune system, and we know that refusing to think about problems eventually leads to gum disease, then it makes more sense to make that final causal leap at the end of the chain from 'suppression of immune system' to 'gum disease'!
The entire causal chain would look like this:
refusing to think about problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system --> gum disease
(E) gives us a different relationship. We might interpret this as "stress causes refusing to think about problems". If this were assumed, then stress leads to two things at once: suppression of immune system AND refusing to think about problems. Since the author is assuming that refusing to think about problems causes gum disease, the causal chain (without the conclusion) would look like this:
Stress --> refusing to think about problems --> gum disease
\__> suppression of immune system
In this case, even with this assumption, there's no reason for the author to conclude any connection between the gum disease and the suppression of the immune system.
Let's take a quick look at the other wrong answers as well:
(A) if painful conditions (like gum disease) interfere with a person's ability to address problems quickly and directly, that would undermine the assumption the author makes about the direction of the causal relationship between gum disease and 'refusing to think about problems' - it reverses the direction!
(C) If stress causes people to address things quickly and directly, and stress also causes the suppression of the immune system, then it is LESS likely that immune suppression would cause gum disease (since that's correlated with NOT addressing things quickly and directly!).
(D) If quick/direct people seek out dental care fast, that supports the author's assumption that 'refusing to think about problems' causes gum disease. However, it undermines the assumption the author makes that it must cause it indirectly. We don't need this to be true to support the conclusion the there's a causal connection between gum disease and immune suppression - in fact, it's damaging.
I hope this helps clear things up a bit on a challenging question!
-
- 513852276
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 49
- Joined: July 01st, 2014
Re: Q10 - A recent study
Thannk you christine.defenbaugh! But I find two questions about your reasoning.
For answer choice B:
But B only suggests: (underlined conditions are from answer choice)
refusing to think about problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system
refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease
Just like you said about E:
Stress --> refusing to think about problems --> (or just correlates to) gum disease
stress--> suppression of immune system
Also, for answer choice E, it does not say "Stress --> refusing to think about problems".
E says since addressing problem is stressful, people refuse to think about problem. So, it is more like "addressing problem---> stressful"or "not stressful---> not address problem"
Hence, the reasoning should be:
addressing problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system
refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease
Even E is hold, the conclusion is not appropriately drawn.
If E wants to mean "Stress --> refusing to think about problems", may be it should states "the reason some people refuse to think about problems is that they are stressful"
Overall, I choose B through eliminating wrong answers, but actually choice B is NOT an assumption required. We can negate B, assuming "refuse to think about problems do not contributes to a person's level of stress", and we also assume "immune system which causes people to refuse to address the problem".
So. stress --> suppression of immune system--->refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease.
The conclusion still hold.
For answer choice B:
christine.defenbaugh Wrote:At first glance both (B) and (E) seem potentially helpful. But only (B) connects the causal chain in a way the author intends: If refusing to think about problems causes stress, and we know that stress suppresses the immune system, and we know that refusing to think about problems eventually leads to gum disease, then it makes more sense to make that final causal leap at the end of the chain from 'suppression of immune system' to 'gum disease'!
The entire causal chain would look like this:
refusing to think about problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system --> gum disease
But B only suggests: (underlined conditions are from answer choice)
refusing to think about problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system
refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease
Just like you said about E:
Stress --> refusing to think about problems --> (or just correlates to) gum disease
stress--> suppression of immune system
Also, for answer choice E, it does not say "Stress --> refusing to think about problems".
E says since addressing problem is stressful, people refuse to think about problem. So, it is more like "addressing problem---> stressful"or "not stressful---> not address problem"
Hence, the reasoning should be:
addressing problems --> stress --> suppression of immune system
refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease
Even E is hold, the conclusion is not appropriately drawn.
If E wants to mean "Stress --> refusing to think about problems", may be it should states "the reason some people refuse to think about problems is that they are stressful"
Overall, I choose B through eliminating wrong answers, but actually choice B is NOT an assumption required. We can negate B, assuming "refuse to think about problems do not contributes to a person's level of stress", and we also assume "immune system which causes people to refuse to address the problem".
So. stress --> suppression of immune system--->refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease.
The conclusion still hold.
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
Re: Q10 - A recent study
I actually wouldn't even try to diagram (E) conditionally. It's a causal statement. It's not a conditional statement. Christine was helpfully demonstrating that it doesn't work when you do try to draw it conditionally, but as you noted in this post, forcing a causal statement into a conditional format can be fraught and gets confusing fast.
(E) doesn't work because it doesn't have to be true. They can be refusing to think about their problems for ANY reason, but if it stresses them out and that impairs immune function, the conclusion can hold.
I'm not sure what you're doing here...I don't see where you're getting that we should assume suppression of an immune system causes people to refuse to address a problem. The argument doesn't assume that or argue that. The argument tells us stress suppresses the immune system. The link the argument is making between stress and refusing to address problems. Immune system is the afterthought.
(E) doesn't work because it doesn't have to be true. They can be refusing to think about their problems for ANY reason, but if it stresses them out and that impairs immune function, the conclusion can hold.
513852276 Wrote:Overall, I choose B through eliminating wrong answers, but actually choice B is NOT an assumption required. We can negate B, assuming "refuse to think about problems do not contributes to a person's level of stress", and we also assume "immune system which causes people to refuse to address the problem".
So. stress --> suppression of immune system--->refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease.
The conclusion still hold.
I'm not sure what you're doing here...I don't see where you're getting that we should assume suppression of an immune system causes people to refuse to address a problem. The argument doesn't assume that or argue that. The argument tells us stress suppresses the immune system. The link the argument is making between stress and refusing to address problems. Immune system is the afterthought.
-
- tanglele
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: August 16th, 2014
Re: Q10 - A recent study
maryadkins Wrote:I actually wouldn't even try to diagram (E) conditionally. It's a causal statement. It's not a conditional statement. Christine was helpfully demonstrating that it doesn't work when you do try to draw it conditionally, but as you noted in this post, forcing a causal statement into a conditional format can be fraught and gets confusing fast.
(E) doesn't work because it doesn't have to be true. They can be refusing to think about their problems for ANY reason, but if it stresses them out and that impairs immune function, the conclusion can hold.513852276 Wrote:Overall, I choose B through eliminating wrong answers, but actually choice B is NOT an assumption required. We can negate B, assuming "refuse to think about problems do not contributes to a person's level of stress", and we also assume "immune system which causes people to refuse to address the problem".
So. stress --> suppression of immune system--->refusing to think about problems -->(or just correlates to) gum disease.
The conclusion still hold.
I'm not sure what you're doing here...I don't see where you're getting that we should assume suppression of an immune system causes people to refuse to address a problem. The argument doesn't assume that or argue that. The argument tells us stress suppresses the immune system. The link the argument is making between stress and refusing to address problems. Immune system is the afterthought.
Sorry i still dont get it. You mean the conditional diagram the previous guest posted is wrong? Because I believe it was right and I am also confused how to get the conclusion
-
- asafezrati
-
Thanks Received: 6
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 116
- Joined: December 07th, 2014
Re: Q10 - A recent study
Firstly, there is not conditional logic here. Most of the links are causation ones and there is one correlation.
Second, 513852276's diagram doesn't help. The diagram makes the mentioning of "Stress causes Bad Immune System" obsolete. The right answer choices MUST reconcile with the author's idea of the structure, and making a premise obsolete doesn't do that.
But I think that he was right. There's a huge problem with this question. The argument itself is horrible.
On the one hand most of the relationships between the elements are cause-effect ones:
Stress (causes) Bad Immune System (causes) Gum Disease
The argument relies on Stress and Avoid Problems being connected somehow, so an effect of Stress (Bad Immune System) will have some correlation with the final effect (Gum Disease).
I don't see how Stress causing Avoiding Problems can't be a part of the speaker's intended structure.
S causes AP
S causes Bad IS
Occurrence of AP is correlated with GD
----(some magical logical process)----
Tada! Bad IS causes some GD
Killing the wrong answer choices is much better:
A. We don't know that gum disease is connected to painful conditions. It makes the first premise's correlation into a causal relationship. Not helping.
C. Hurts the argument.
D. If it has any effect on the argument it actually weakens.
E. It says that in order to avoid the stress related to problems people choose not to think about them. We don't get to see that they are under stress, so no causation is activated.
Second, 513852276's diagram doesn't help. The diagram makes the mentioning of "Stress causes Bad Immune System" obsolete. The right answer choices MUST reconcile with the author's idea of the structure, and making a premise obsolete doesn't do that.
But I think that he was right. There's a huge problem with this question. The argument itself is horrible.
On the one hand most of the relationships between the elements are cause-effect ones:
Stress (causes) Bad Immune System (causes) Gum Disease
The argument relies on Stress and Avoid Problems being connected somehow, so an effect of Stress (Bad Immune System) will have some correlation with the final effect (Gum Disease).
I don't see how Stress causing Avoiding Problems can't be a part of the speaker's intended structure.
S causes AP
S causes Bad IS
Occurrence of AP is correlated with GD
----(some magical logical process)----
Tada! Bad IS causes some GD
Killing the wrong answer choices is much better:
A. We don't know that gum disease is connected to painful conditions. It makes the first premise's correlation into a causal relationship. Not helping.
C. Hurts the argument.
D. If it has any effect on the argument it actually weakens.
E. It says that in order to avoid the stress related to problems people choose not to think about them. We don't get to see that they are under stress, so no causation is activated.
-
- andrewgong01
-
Thanks Received: 61
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 289
- Joined: October 31st, 2016
Re: Q10 - A recent study
There still seems to be something "fishy" about this question's answer where even with the answer choice the argument just seems to be lacking something
With the answer choice we basically know ( the answer choice is bolded in red)
Refuse to think ---> More Stress --> Weaker Immune
Refuse to think ---> More likely gum issues
Conclusion : Weak immune aggravates gum issues.
From the conditional we know two end results of Refusing to Think: First, you get more stressed = weaker immune. Second, you have a higher chance of gum disease. We are still missing some link between weaker immune and gum diseases, specifically the former exacerbating the latter . There seems to another assumption in there is a correlation between weaker immune and gum issues because at the moment all we can say is that if one refuses to think they have both a weaker immune system and gum issues. I guess as a NA we don't have to seal the argument and this answer choice at least lets us start chaining the relation between refusing to think leading to weaker immune and then from there we need to assume weaker immune leads to/ exacerbates gum issues...
Going with an earlier post on "E" (copied below and choice e in red) [Christine's post]
Stress --> refusing to think about problems --> gum disease
Stress--_> suppression of immune system
In this case, by the same logic I used in "B" couldn't this be correct then. We know if you are stressed then we know you have higher incidence of gum disease and you have a suppressed immune system. Now all we need to assume is some correlation between the two end results, just like how you have to assume some correlation in the end result for Choice B too ?
With the answer choice we basically know ( the answer choice is bolded in red)
Refuse to think ---> More Stress --> Weaker Immune
Refuse to think ---> More likely gum issues
Conclusion : Weak immune aggravates gum issues.
From the conditional we know two end results of Refusing to Think: First, you get more stressed = weaker immune. Second, you have a higher chance of gum disease. We are still missing some link between weaker immune and gum diseases, specifically the former exacerbating the latter . There seems to another assumption in there is a correlation between weaker immune and gum issues because at the moment all we can say is that if one refuses to think they have both a weaker immune system and gum issues. I guess as a NA we don't have to seal the argument and this answer choice at least lets us start chaining the relation between refusing to think leading to weaker immune and then from there we need to assume weaker immune leads to/ exacerbates gum issues...
Going with an earlier post on "E" (copied below and choice e in red) [Christine's post]
Stress --> refusing to think about problems --> gum disease
Stress--_> suppression of immune system
In this case, by the same logic I used in "B" couldn't this be correct then. We know if you are stressed then we know you have higher incidence of gum disease and you have a suppressed immune system. Now all we need to assume is some correlation between the two end results, just like how you have to assume some correlation in the end result for Choice B too ?
-
- AnnaC659
-
Thanks Received: 3
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 40
- Joined: January 03rd, 2018
Re: Q10 - A recent study
Hi,
I agree with andrewgong01 that there still is something missing in the argument even after including the answer choice (B) in the conditional logic chain.
I recall being very confused with this question under time constraint and only managed to get the right answer through POE.
The reasons why I eliminated the other answer choices are because:
(A) the "ability" to address problems doesn't have to be assumed - irrelevant
(C) highly stressed people address problems quickly... - sounds like it contradicts the argument; also "tend to" sounds too quick for a necessary assumption question
(D) "'invariably' seek dental care" - sounds very unnecessary to assume; dental care also may not mean reduction in gum disease
(E) "reason" why some people refuse to think about problems doesn't need to be addressed - irrelevant
I feel this may be POE based on gut feeling which I was advised not to do.
Can Manhattanprep tell me if this is still an okay process? Do I need a better strategy?
Thank you!
I agree with andrewgong01 that there still is something missing in the argument even after including the answer choice (B) in the conditional logic chain.
I recall being very confused with this question under time constraint and only managed to get the right answer through POE.
The reasons why I eliminated the other answer choices are because:
(A) the "ability" to address problems doesn't have to be assumed - irrelevant
(C) highly stressed people address problems quickly... - sounds like it contradicts the argument; also "tend to" sounds too quick for a necessary assumption question
(D) "'invariably' seek dental care" - sounds very unnecessary to assume; dental care also may not mean reduction in gum disease
(E) "reason" why some people refuse to think about problems doesn't need to be addressed - irrelevant
I feel this may be POE based on gut feeling which I was advised not to do.
Can Manhattanprep tell me if this is still an okay process? Do I need a better strategy?
Thank you!
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q10 - A recent study
Most of your reasoning is very solid!
I don't know why you and Andrew are even worrying about whether or not (B) is enough to complete the argument. We're not doing Sufficient Assumption, where that WOULD be a concern.
This is Necessary Assumption. An answer isn't correct because it completes the argument. It's correct because it matches the author's thinking and if we were to negate it, it would hurt the argument.
Great pick up of "tend to" in (C) and "invariably" in (D) being TOO STRONG.
Great pick up of "dental care" in (D) and "the reason" in (E) being OUT OF SCOPE.
Your rationale for (A) isn't great. (A) is very relevant. It weakens the argument. That's why we know for sure the author isn't assuming it.
Remember that when LSAT presents a correlation, such as this one:
addressing problems quickly || lower rate of gum disease
addressing problems slowly || higher rate of gum disease
The author will assume that one of those causes the other. In this case, she is assuming that
addressing problems slowly -> stress -> higher rate of gum disease
addressing problems quickly -> less stress -> lower rate of gum disease
Who says the causality in this correlation flows from left to right?
Whenever we're presented with a correlation, we consider the ideas that
1. causality might flow the other direction (reverse causality)
2. these two correlated things might both really be attached to some 3rd factor, that is the causal factor
(A) is giving us reverse causality. It's suggesting that the reason that addressing problems slowly and higher rates of gum disease are correlated is that
gum disease -> painful condition -> address problems more slowly
Finally, in addition to your 75% correct POE, when you go to pick (B), or any answer on Necessary Assumption, you should confirm that it matches the author's thinking and that if negated it would weaken the argument.
The author definitely mentioned both parts of (B) and seemed to swap out the idea of "not addressing problems quickly and directly" for the idea of "stress".
If we negated (B), and said that "thinking about problems slowly or indirectly DOES NOT have anything to do with stress", that would badly weaken the argument, since it would mean that the 1st sentence and the 2nd sentence (first half) have nothing to do with each other.
Hope this helps.
I don't know why you and Andrew are even worrying about whether or not (B) is enough to complete the argument. We're not doing Sufficient Assumption, where that WOULD be a concern.
This is Necessary Assumption. An answer isn't correct because it completes the argument. It's correct because it matches the author's thinking and if we were to negate it, it would hurt the argument.
Great pick up of "tend to" in (C) and "invariably" in (D) being TOO STRONG.
Great pick up of "dental care" in (D) and "the reason" in (E) being OUT OF SCOPE.
Your rationale for (A) isn't great. (A) is very relevant. It weakens the argument. That's why we know for sure the author isn't assuming it.
Remember that when LSAT presents a correlation, such as this one:
addressing problems quickly || lower rate of gum disease
addressing problems slowly || higher rate of gum disease
The author will assume that one of those causes the other. In this case, she is assuming that
addressing problems slowly -> stress -> higher rate of gum disease
addressing problems quickly -> less stress -> lower rate of gum disease
Who says the causality in this correlation flows from left to right?
Whenever we're presented with a correlation, we consider the ideas that
1. causality might flow the other direction (reverse causality)
2. these two correlated things might both really be attached to some 3rd factor, that is the causal factor
(A) is giving us reverse causality. It's suggesting that the reason that addressing problems slowly and higher rates of gum disease are correlated is that
gum disease -> painful condition -> address problems more slowly
Finally, in addition to your 75% correct POE, when you go to pick (B), or any answer on Necessary Assumption, you should confirm that it matches the author's thinking and that if negated it would weaken the argument.
The author definitely mentioned both parts of (B) and seemed to swap out the idea of "not addressing problems quickly and directly" for the idea of "stress".
If we negated (B), and said that "thinking about problems slowly or indirectly DOES NOT have anything to do with stress", that would badly weaken the argument, since it would mean that the 1st sentence and the 2nd sentence (first half) have nothing to do with each other.
Hope this helps.
9 posts Page 1 of 1