Q11 - A recent epidemiological study found

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Stresses of int'l travel can cause insomnia.
Evidence: People who travel internationally on business are more likely to suffer from chronic insomnia than those who don't. Stresses of int'l travel include changes in climate, daily routine, and culture.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a Correlation to Causality argument. There's a correlation between "international business travel" and "insomnia", and the author concludes that the former causes the latter. Any time we have a causal conclusion, we address the same two pressure points:
1. Is there another way to explain the background fact?
2. Is the author's explanation plausible?
Here, she made a case for the plausibility of her story with her second premise. We but we could strengthen her story by getting an answer that provides more connective tissue between changes in climate/routine/culture and insomnia.
We could also Rule Out an DIFFERENT way to explain the background fact. With correlations, we always want to consider reverse causality (maybe business people who already have insomnia are more likely to take an international travel assignment, since they're thinking "Welp --it's not like I'd be getting a good night's sleep if I WEREN'T on a plane"). We could also think about some Other causal factor that explains the insomnia and causes or is associated with being an international traveling businessperson. (Maybe the people most likely to be sent on an international trip are those with the most responsibility at their company, and so it's the stress of their JOBS, not the stress of the travel, that causes the insomnia).

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This feels more like it weakens than anything else. If your international travel is just going to your next door neighbor country, it's probably not the most grueling, stressful form of travel (and thus not super likely to disrupt your whole sleep schedule).

(B) "Some" is dangerously weak on Str/Weak. The author doesn't need for every single international businessperson to be stressed by a new climate / culture. We're speaking about correlations and generalities. These room plenty of room for "some" exceptions.

(C) Correct! This rules out Reverse Causality. If we negated this, it would weaken the argument by explaining the background correlation the other way "Insomnia came first .. international travel came second".

(D) This feels more like it weakens. The author's story is that the changes in climate/routine are causing insomnia. This answer makes it sounds like they're curing insomnia.

(E) Super weak, because of "some", but this goes in a Weaken direction. The author would want to think that once you stop traveling internationally, you stop having the insomnia that she thinks is caused by that travel (no cause, no effect). This answer provides a counterexample of (no cause, effect).

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a tough correct answer if you don't do your due diligence in prephrasing Correlation to Causality arguments. If there's a correlation between X and Y, and the author thinks that X causes Y, remind yourself: "The answer will either rule out the idea that [Y causes X], rule out the idea that [Z causes Y, and Z is just somehow associated with X], or the answer will increase the plausibility that X and Y go hand in hand.

#officialexplanation

[Shiggins]

I am confused over how C is the correct answer here. I chose E bc i figured if some of the buisness people who use to travel no longer do then they are more than likely not facing the stresses that lead to insomnia. I know answer choice E finishes with "sleep-related ailments." So is it wrong bc that is not synomymous with insomnia. Also if C can be explained, much appreciated.

[timmydoeslsat]

We have a correlation to causation issue here.

We are asked to strengthen that we do in fact have a causation.

This stimulus can be shown as follows:

Recent study found that businesspeople that travel internationally on business are more likely to have chronic insomnia than businesspeople that do not
--->Therefore, it is likely that international travel causes the chronic insomnia.


Think about ways that this would not necessarily be true. And we can use this thought process to help think about things that we can use to bolster, or close a gap in the argument.

Answer choice C does this for us. For us to go from a mere correlation to a causation, it would really strengthen the idea if it were true that those who already suffered from the insomnia were not more likely to do the international travel.

Imagine for a moment:

Businesses across Texas are sending memos to people in their respective offices about the upcoming international meeting in China.

Those who suffer insomnia may be more likely to volunteer for such a cause, simply because they have trouble sleeping anyway, and a long travel trip is not going to phase them as much as it would for the normal person.

What if it were the case that 8 out of the 10 people that volunteered to go to this meeting in China were insomniacs?

Could we really then say that the travel caused their condition? No.

Answer choice E is really just giving us more of the same, a weak correlation. Sleep-related ailments is not that great of a match either.

[jamiejames]

We have a correlation to causation issue here.

We are asked to strengthen that we do in fact have a causation.

This stimulus can be shown as follows:

Recent study found that businesspeople that travel internationally on business are more likely to have chronic insomnia than businesspeople that do not
--->Therefore, it is likely that international travel causes the chronic insomnia.


Think about ways that this would not necessarily be true. And we can use this thought process to help think about things that we can use to bolster, or close a gap in the argument.

Answer choice C does this for us. For us to go from a mere correlation to a causation, it would really strengthen the idea if it were true that those who already suffered from the insomnia were not more likely to do the international travel.

Imagine for a moment:

Businesses across Texas are sending memos to people in their respective offices about the upcoming international meeting in China.

Those who suffer insomnia may be more likely to volunteer for such a cause, simply because they have trouble sleeping anyway, and a long travel trip is not going to phase them as much as it would for the normal person.

What if it were the case that 8 out of the 10 people that volunteered to go to this meeting in China were insomniacs?

Could we really then say that the travel caused their condition? No.

Answer choice E is really just giving us more of the same, a weak correlation. Sleep-related ailments is not that great of a match either.

So what c is saying is that a business man would be far less likely to go on a trip if that trip was the cause of his insomnia? That seems like an incredibly big assumption, people do many things they don't want to do and cause their health to deteriorate for business/employment reasons knowing full well the cause/effect (not trying to seem combative - I was down to c and e)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Timmy, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not what I saw in your explanation.

Answer choice (C) strengthens the argument's conclusion that it is the stresses that cause the insomnia, by ruling out the possibility that those with chronic insomnia are more likely to accept assignments that require international travel. If they were more likely to accept international travel, then the increased correlation between those stresses and chronic insomnia could not be explained as the stresses are causing the insomnia, since they already had the insomnia before accepting the assignments that require international travel.

So what c is saying is that a business man would be far less likely to go on a trip if that trip was the cause of his insomnia?

Answer choice (C) is discussing people who already have insomnia and asserting that they're not more likely to sign up for assignments that require international travel. This does not assert whether travel is causing the insomnia, but it rules out the possibility that the correlation discovered in the argument's evidence could be explained by the propensity of people with insomnia to sign up for stressful assignments. This won't prove the conclusion, but it does make it more likely.

Hope that helps!

[timmydoeslsat]

Thanks Matt. I am sorry jeastman, but I am not understanding how you interpreted that from my post.

I will try to be more clear, it is a classic LSAT argument.

We are told that international business travelers are more likely to be chronic insomniacs than those that do not travel on business.

Does this mean that international business travel is causing this insomnia present?

Not necessarily.

Could it not be true that insomniacs are simply more likely to take the international trips. Wouldnt that be devastating to our causal claim? What if all of the people who are doing these international business trips were already suffering from chronic insomnia.

We want to strengthen (or protect) this causal claim. Answer choice C gives us that by stating that chronic insomniacs are not more likely to accept these int trips.

[boy5237]

Correct me if I am wrong:

First of all, it was a little bit hard to understand what C is saying but this question is rather easy since other 4 ACs are terrible... Thank God.

But what C is essentially doing is ruling out an alternative explanation.

The core of this argument is that:

Stress causes insomnia.

So we have to strengthen this causality.

C says that the representativeness of business people on international flight vs people not on flight is equal.

Because it could be the possibility that if the former group is comprised of 1000000 pre-exposed insomniacs whereas the latter group is comprised of 100 with no pre-exposed insomnia, then this whole argument falls apart.

[ilia.medovikov]

Just a note on answer choice (E) which was selected by 38 % of the test-takers, almost the same percentage as those who selected the correct answer.

One way to strengthen the causal conclusion is to affirm that when the cause occurs (international travel) the effect occurs as well (insomnia). At first glance, answer choice (E) does that - some business people who once traveled internationally (indicates occurrence of the cause) but no longer do so complain of various sleep related ailments (at face value indicates occurrence of the effect, that is the insomnia). However, "various sleep related ailments" is a vague term which does not necessarily mean that any of business people mentioned in (e) complained of insomnia. It is possible all of the business people mentioned in (e) complained of other disorders such as sleep apnea. Therefore, (e) does not affirm the causal relationship between international travel and insomnia and thus it does not strengthen the argument.

[WaltGrace1983]

Just a note on answer choice (E) which was selected by 38 % of the test-takers, almost the same percentage as those who selected the correct answer.

One way to strengthen the causal conclusion is to affirm that when the cause occurs (international travel) the effect occurs as well (insomnia). At first glance, answer choice (E) does that - some business people who once traveled internationally (indicates occurrence of the cause) but no longer do so complain of various sleep related ailments (at face value indicates occurrence of the effect, that is the insomnia). However, "various sleep related ailments" is a vague term which does not necessarily mean that any of business people mentioned in (e) complained of insomnia. It is possible all of the business people mentioned in (e) complained of other disorders such as sleep apnea. Therefore, (e) does not affirm the causal relationship between international travel and insomnia and thus it does not strengthen the argument.

In addition to this, can't we say that these people don't really matter at all for strengthening the argument? This is because they don't travel internationally anymore and we don't know when they developed the insomnia! There is a lot wrong with this answer choice. There is what you already said (that "sleep-related ailments" ~= "insomnia") and there is this idea that these people only "once traveled internationally." They could have traveled internationally ten years ago but never had insomnia until last year, thus ultimately posing a threat to the argument.

[rinagoldfield]

Great conversation above!

Walt, you’re right that (E) isn’t a very relevant answer choice, although I interpret its irrelevancy a little differently than you do.

I think people who "once traveled internationally" may be relevant to the argument. The stressors described above are temporary. They are "disruption of daily routine" and "changes in climate" "”all things that would go away once a person stopped traveling. So if people who traveled 10 years ago continue to suffer from sleep ailments, then perhaps these stressors were NOT the cause of the original sleep disorders. Perhaps something else"”an anxious disposition, a chronic illness contracted abroad, whatever"”caused the business people’s insomnia. In this way, this answer choice could be seen as weakening the causal relationship in the argument.

But I still think (E) is irrelevant. Why? The word "some." How many is some? One? Two? We have no idea. So, two businesspeople who used to travel internationally have insomnia now. So what? There are millions of businesspeople in the world. These two are not statistically significant.

What do you think of my interpretation?

[WaltGrace1983]

Great conversation above!

Walt, you’re right that (E) isn’t a very relevant answer choice, although I interpret its irrelevancy a little differently than you do.

I think people who "once traveled internationally" may be relevant to the argument. The stressors described above are temporary. They are "disruption of daily routine" and "changes in climate" "”all things that would go away once a person stopped traveling. So if people who traveled 10 years ago continue to suffer from sleep ailments, then perhaps these stressors were NOT the cause of the original sleep disorders. Perhaps something else"”an anxious disposition, a chronic illness contracted abroad, whatever"”caused the business people’s insomnia. In this way, this answer choice could be seen as weakening the causal relationship in the argument.

But I still think (E) is irrelevant. Why? The word "some." How many is some? One? Two? We have no idea. So, two businesspeople who used to travel internationally have insomnia now. So what? There are millions of businesspeople in the world. These two are not statistically significant.

What do you think of my interpretation?

It makes perfect sense! It makes sense, I think, because this is a STRENGTHEN question. "Some" can be very significant in say a Necessary Assumption question but if we are presumably talking about quite a lot of (perhaps millions of) businessmen then only having "some" complain about certain sleep-related ailments doesn't really do much. I think that sounds good!

Thanks for your reply

[alena21century]

I really can't see how choice C can be the correct answer.

So, imagine that Anna and Bob accepted 100 international business trips and they are insomniac. Tina and Drew also accepted 100 international business trips, and they are not insomniac. How can this strengthen the argument that stresses of international travel cause insomnia? This is a neutral (weaken) answer, since it shows that the effect may not happen - international travel does not necessarily cause insomnia.

I understand the part that rules out the possibility that the insomniac people for some weird reason may accept more international travel than non-insomniac. It does strengthen the argument. But at the same time, as shown above, it weakens the argument too. I thought that the correct answer could not be ambiguous.

[stacksdoe]

Matt or Rina,

I understand why its C. Makes perfect sense: leveling the play-field can weaken or strengthen an argument, depending on the context. And I understand its better then all the other answer choices, but I was unable to find a distinct or a strong reason to eliminate answer choice A....

Any feedback greatly appreciated

[maryadkins]

Thanks for your post! Let's go through the wrong answer choices since that has not been done yet on this thread.

(A) is irrelevant. We are already told about all of the problems that come up with international travel that could cause insomnia. Whether that's taking place over ocean or land doesn't matter.

(B) same...irrelevant. Also "some" could mean two of them. Not that their enjoyment matters.

(D) definitely does not STRENGTHEN the argument.

(E) so they still have trouble sleeping? And "some" of them, which could mean just a couple? Nah. This doesn't strengthen the argument, regardless, but also it is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

[Artyuchang]

I got D over C, if A and B have some correlation, we cannot simply say A-B or B-A, in this case, can insomnia actually cause stress(due to the climate change, especially time zone different) which certainly yes. D reinforces the conclusion stress---insomnia instead vice versa, it kind of goes with C that it is not insomnia(people)----stress