Q12 - Coffee and tea contain

[Celeste757]

hello,

can you please explain the difference between C and D? I picked C, and D is correct. Seems to me like since they are saying the complications of the surgery are the problem (hence - afterwards), avoiding consumption before isnt really a logical answer... seems like it makes more sense to infer that women drink more (hence they get out of their surgery and drink more).

Help??

thank you very much...

[theaether]

The argument is broken down as:
Coffee/tea --> methylxanthines --> vasopressin --> clumping of blood cells

more pronounced clumping in women --> higher risk for women of complications following angioplasty

We cannot assume, as (C) does, that women drink more coffee/tea. It is a sufficient but not required condition for the higher risk. Maybe men and women drink the same amount of tea, but women have certain hormones that make them more at risk. Maybe it's some other reason that women are more at risk. We don't know that it's the coffee/tea!

What we do know, however, is (D). Because we know that coffee/tea can increase the risk of complications, women should avoid drinking it and initiating the logic chain written above.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

The above reply makes sense. I mistook this question for "Support" question. If it were a support or an assumption question, would it be okay to consider C) a correct answer choice?

Essentially, as per the argument, women have greater chances of AP complications than men.

If the assumption is that Women drink more coffee and tea, I think C could be a good supporter (confirming the assumption) or an assumption.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

LSAT Instructors,
Can you please help me with my question above?

Appreciate your help.

thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

I am not an LSAT instructor (although I am aspiring to be one soon!) but I will give you my thoughts on your question before someone from Manhattan comments.

First, I am hesitant as to whether we can dispute the conclusion in this case with the question stem we have. Although the conclusion is not valid logically, I believe that with this question stem of what is most strongly supported, we concede the conclusion as it stands.


However, if you were to transform this question into an assumption type question, we want to identify the conclusion. In this case, it would be the last sentence. "This is probably the explanation of the fact that women face as much as a tenfold higher risk than men do of complications following angioplasty"


The "this" in the conclusion is referring to the previous sentence regarding vasopressin and clumping being more pronounced in women than men.


This would be a somewhat awkward sufficient assumption question type, where we would be attempting to validate a probable situation involving these complications to the vasopressin clumping issue.

A necessary assumption question would have as possibilities:

Angioplasty complications have at least some relation to vasopressin.

A necessary assumption answer would attempt to rule out high probability situations involving other variables that would lead to complications affecting women more than men in angioplasty, such as maybe the size of a patient or some item that women consume more than men that would affect outcomes in angioplasty.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'll add a few thoughts on this one as well. To answer your question:

If it were a support or an assumption question, would it be okay to consider C) a correct answer choice?

The structure of this argument is that there is an observed phenomenon (women face greater risk of complications from angioplasty). The author offers an explanation for why this is (clumping of blood cells is more pronounced in women than in men). Since coffee and tea contain methylxanthines which produce vasopressin, which in turn leads to clumping of blood cells, if women drank more coffee and tea than men, this might help explain why the clumping is more pronounced in women rather than men. Thus, this would support the argument. But it is not an assumption that would ensure the conclusion, nor is an assumption that is required of the argument.

So the answer to your question, Strengthen - yes, Assumption - no.

Hope that helps!

[jamiejames]

The stimulus says that they have a greater risk post op, but the answer choice says that they shouldn't drink coffe/tea per-op, this is why I counsels choose D, can anyone help me on this?

[timmydoeslsat]

I really like this question. To answer your question jeastman, lets back track a little.

We are told that coffee and tea contains M which causes temporary increases in V. We know that V causes clumping of cells. [We also know that the V caused clumping of cells is more pronounced in women than men.]*

This information tells us that the bracketed statement above* is more than likely the reason why women face complications following angioplasty.

So we know that vasopressin, at its normal natural state, can be a problem for women. So to have coffee and tea prior to the surgery would be compounding the situation. You would be raising the level of vasopressin even higher than the problematic level currently for women. We know that vasopressin at its normal state is probably causing issues for women with this procedure.

In a nutshell, V is causing problems for women with this procedure already.

We have support to not make V even higher for women.

[pkraft1]

I feel like this is one of those questions that having a philosophy background confuses you on. When I read D, the word "should" pops out as highly problematic (especially because the LSAT often tests term shifts by utilizing the difference between something being bad and the obligation to avoid it).

Basically, I eliminated D because it looks like an is-ought fallacy. Yes, women have more complications (bad things), but am I to then derive from that that bad things "should" be avoided? Typically, in daily life, yes. On the LSAT, I'm not sure. I have to infer from the word "complications" and "risk" that women should avoid things that may contribute to that.

This doesn't have the level of necessary entailment the LSAT uses with sufficient assumption questions. I guess that's why it's a MSS question and not a MBT or SA.

[Pre-Law Guide]

I have a question about rejecting C. The way I see the argument:

• C and T contain M
• M causes P to produce V
• V causes BC clump
• BC clump more in women
• BC more in women probably cause more risk from A


Is it valid to say that the reason that C is wrong is because there is no suggestion that women have more V, just that V in women causes more clumping

On the other hand, D directly gets at the links we see above. While it does not follow that men would want to drink coffee, this answer choice does not require that. We certainly have some basis for concluding that at least women should not drink coffee because it would stimulate V (same amount of V perhaps as in a man) but that V would definitely stimulate a lot of BC, which is the problem.

[haeeunjee]

I feel like this is one of those questions that having a philosophy background confuses you on. When I read D, the word "should" pops out as highly problematic (especially because the LSAT often tests term shifts by utilizing the difference between something being bad and the obligation to avoid it).

Basically, I eliminated D because it looks like an is-ought fallacy. Yes, women have more complications (bad things), but am I to then derive from that that bad things "should" be avoided? Typically, in daily life, yes. On the LSAT, I'm not sure. I have to infer from the word "complications" and "risk" that women should avoid things that may contribute to that.

This doesn't have the level of necessary entailment the LSAT uses with sufficient assumption questions. I guess that's why it's a MSS question and not a MBT or SA.

I think you should assume that bad things "should" be avoided -- or more specifically, that people, in a reasonable world, would want to avoid things that are harmful to health. I think this is an important common sense notion that we are allowed to have on the LSAT, esp. given the plethora of medical-related stimuli.

Secondly, I agree the MSS and MBT distinction is important, esp in this case. I was wary of (D) because it was subjective / giving a recommendation while the stimulus seems to just give a list of facts/explanations, but I think this stimulus has an aura of an argument -- "This is probably the explanation of the fact that..." would be the conclusion. Anyways, for MSS, I would loosen on making strict distinctions between AC's simply based on "is vs. ought."

[ainam659]

I feel like this is one of those questions that having a philosophy background confuses you on. When I read D, the word "should" pops out as highly problematic (especially because the LSAT often tests term shifts by utilizing the difference between something being bad and the obligation to avoid it).

Basically, I eliminated D because it looks like an is-ought fallacy. Yes, women have more complications (bad things), but am I to then derive from that that bad things "should" be avoided? Typically, in daily life, yes. On the LSAT, I'm not sure. I have to infer from the word "complications" and "risk" that women should avoid things that may contribute to that.

This doesn't have the level of necessary entailment the LSAT uses with sufficient assumption questions. I guess that's why it's a MSS question and not a MBT or SA.

I think you should assume that bad things "should" be avoided -- or more specifically, that people, in a reasonable world, would want to avoid things that are harmful to health. I think this is an important common sense notion that we are allowed to have on the LSAT, esp. given the plethora of medical-related stimuli.

Secondly, I agree the MSS and MBT distinction is important, esp in this case. I was wary of (D) because it was subjective / giving a recommendation while the stimulus seems to just give a list of facts/explanations, but I think this stimulus has an aura of an argument -- "This is probably the explanation of the fact that..." would be the conclusion. Anyways, for MSS, I would loosen on making strict distinctions between AC's simply based on "is vs. ought."

[JeremyK460]

Methods:
Descriptive claims. Causative relationships. The argument provides an explanation for a phenomenon.

Breakdown / List:
C has M which causes more V which causes B which happens more in W

This explains why women are more at risk than men for complications post-angioplasty

Answer Choices:
(A) No one should be given this. Clumping being more pronounced doesn’t mean there’s no clumping at all.

(B) This is an evaluation which calls for the investigation of other treatments. Other effective treatments weren’t discussed.

(E) What? Not even in men?

Answer C: Amount of People & Context:
No matter how you dice it (per capita or altogether), it doesn’t change the fact that a universally allowable (rare exceptions excluded) action (drinking coffee) is an action that COULD afflict women more than it would men. This is because women FACE a higher risk than men do. To face something means to ‘have (a difficult situation) in prospect’. For instance…

‘the defendants FACE a maximum sentence of 10 years’

The max sentence of 10 years is dependent on the trial; just like the higher risk factor for women is dependent on whether or not they drink coffee.

Analogy Argument: Skydiving causes more pronounced blood clots in women than in men. This might explain why women are at a higher risk than men are for complications post-angioplasty.
Analogy Answer C: No women skydive.
Analogy Response: Yeah, but they can…

So, given the context, the numbers don’t matter. It’s the fact that a universally allowable action is more troubling for women than men.

Answer D: Amount of Vasopressin:
Pre-angioplasty, women normally have 100 vasopressin. When those women drink a cup of coffee, they have 150 vasopressin. These women chug a cup of coffee before their angioplasty and the doctors remove 50 vasopressin…