Q12 - In an experiment, two groups of mice

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Experiment: Some mice were fed ginkgo; others weren't. The former group memorized a maze better.

However! Ginkgo reduces stress. Lowering v. high stress improves memory. So the effect in the study might have been indirect.

Answer Anticipation:
Wow, convoluted argument. The conclusion is after the "However", so let's focus there. Rephrased, it states that ginkgo may have indirectly enhanced memory. Why indirect? It actually worked by lowering v. high stress levels.

The conclusion here is definitely causal, which should make you think correlation vs. causation. However, the premise is also causal (ginkgo does, in fact, reduce stress), and a causal premise can support a causal conclusion. So we have to look elsewhere.

The only other element I would focus on is the "very high" - that description puts it well above normal stress levels. They may play off of that in the answers, similar to question #12 from section 4 of this test (the two questions are very similar).

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If anything, strengthen. This answer suggests they definitely had enough ginkgo to have the impact discussed.

(B) Bingo. Probably a second-round pick after eliminating the others. The causal chain envisioned by the author goes ginkgo causes reduced stress causes improved memory. If the mice weren't experiencing higher-than-normal stress levels, the ginkgo probably didn't have the given effect by lowering stress levels.

(C) Out of scope. The studies show that mice on ginko didn't have impaired memoriess, so this answer choice is talking about other chemicals.

(D) Out of scope. The argument only cares if the effect exists; an explanation isn't necessary for that.

(E) Out of scope. The argument is about strength of memory, not speed of learning.

Takeaway/Pattern:
The more convoluted the argument, the more you should focus on getting it down to the core. Also, when the LSAT uses adverbs, pay attention - they convey scale and opinion.

#officialexplanation

[TimaK]

I don't understand why B is correct. Isn't the argument saying that the ginko lowered the stress and that's why the mice who had ginko were able to perform better. But B is mentioning higher-than-normal stress.

I chose A because I though that by giving higher doses of ginko than is known to reduce stress, then we can't be sure that it did reduce stress and that would weaken the argument.

[cverdugo]

Look closely at the core/reasoning of the argument. It says Ginkgo lowers stress in mice, and then further says lowering VERY HIGH STRESS levels is known to improve recall.

B. says well these mice didn't have higher-than-normal stress, so the idea that it was this that improved recall is weakened. Remember the task for a weaken question, we don't need to completely destroy the argument (although sometimes an answer choice might indeed do that) we need to make the conclusion drawn less plausible.

[emossor]

I chose C for my response during the test.

Conclusion: ginko may not have directly enhanced memory
why? reducing high stress improve recall.

A seemed wrong because even if the doses were higher than doses that reduce stress, does that mean it DIDNT reduce stress? It can still have the desired effect.

B seems right now that I look at it. If they didnt have higher stress then maybe the ginko didnt reduce stress and improve recall. It must have been something else.

C... opposite of what we want. If anything it strengthens the argument. SOME chemicals that reduce stress doesnt necessarily mean this specific one. Also, if it does impair memory then doesn't it confirm the conclusion that the ginko did not directly enhance memory?

D: irrelevant. who cares if they havent determined substances

E... how long to learn to navigate isnt the same as the chance of learning it at all. If 1 non ginko mouse learned it out of 100 and 99 out of 100 with ginko learned it and all of them at the same rate... it doesnt matter.

[Jluna13]

I understand why B is correct and I chose it because the other answers weren't any better but I have a serious problem with B.

It says that the mice didn't exhibit signs of higher than normal stress however, couldn't that easily be the case of the gingko working properly thereby strengthening the argument? I feel like for this to answer to be correct, it needs to say before being fed the ginkgo to make this true

[maryadkins]

If the gingko was lowering the stress in the mice who took it, and that was why they did better in the maze, then the other group should show HIGHER stress (because they didn't take the ginkgo and therefore had more stress and did worse).

But (B) tells us nether groups had higher than normal stress. Which means that lowering stress cannot be how the gingko was causing a difference between the two groups.

In other words, there was a difference in performance between the two groups. If it was stress-related, the groups should show different stress levels. But they didn't, according to (B). So that can't be how the ginkgo was working.

Hope this helps clarify (B)!

[Ibrahim.diallo]

My issue with B was the word "physiological". I read B and said "well, just because you can't see it physiologically, it doesn't mean that these mice ain't stressed". Maybe I am just thinking about people too much, don't know how mice show stress, maybe it is all physiological.

Also, my assumption in picking A was that if the dosage is so high, maybe it has no impact on stress at all. (But I see now that if I noticed the shift between High Stress and Stress would have helped me eliminate it.

[tommywallach]

I think you're confusing the word "physiological" with "physical." Physiological just means it manifests in the body, not necessarily in a way you can see.

-t

[daijob]

I dont know why but B sounds strengthen the argument...
the conclusion says ginko may not increase memory, and B also implies ginko was not working (not responsible) isn't it?