Q12 - The higher the average fat

[ebrickm2]

So, this is an example of a weaken question that really ends up confusing the hell out of me. I don't think a discussion of the wrong answers is necessary, as I think with the comprehension of the concept of this weaken question type, I'll be sufficiently capable to recognize them.

So I understand that premises offer a correlation, that of fat and cancer. I recognize that the conclusion assumes that there is in fact a causal relationship.

I just don't understand conceptually how the correct answer, D, weakens this relationship, though I understand that it must. 1000 hugs for a helpful response!

[cyruswhittaker]

From what I've seen so far during studying, when the question assumes a causal relationship, one way to weaken the conclusion is to attack the assumption that the two elements are in fact causally related.

Of course, rather than put this explicitly and easy for you to see, the LSAT tricks you by hiding it behind a confusing answer choice.

In this question, D weakens the argument by presenting additional evidence that attacks the assumption of causality: perhaps the environmental pollution is a third factor that is the real culprit for the cancer, and because of the correlation of pollution with fat intake, a mistaken relationship has been assumed between cancer and fat intake.

D doesn't necessarily prove, disprove, or even assert any kind of necessary relationship; rather, it simply provides grounds for attack of the underlying assumption that causes this argument to be flawed.

Hope this helps.

[ericalkim]

You are both right that what is underlying this argument is a correlation/causation issue --

Essentially, the author is assuming that since (A) is correlated with (B), (A) must have some causal impact on (B).

We know this is wrong. (B) could have caused (A), or there could be no causal relationship between (A) and (B). Very often, we can weaken such a conclusion by showing that they may not have a direct impact on one another at all -- often due to something else being involved.

That's what (D) does -- it shows that there could be another element in the picture. If (D) is true, it provides an alternative explanation for the correlation between higher fat intake and incidence of cancer, and it shows how such a correlation could exist without causation. This hurts how the author can use the evidence he presents to prove the point he makes.

Do we know for sure, based on this argument, that environmental pollution causes cancer? Absolutely not. However, this answer does show that the author was at fault in assuming what is just one of several causation possibilities.

Here's an analogous argument. Imagine your friend said, "Everyone who is wearing black got into the crowded club. So, if we want to get in, we just have to wear black."

Well, let's imagine you found out that everyone who black also happened to have passes that let them into the club. Notice, the correlation between wearing black and getting in still exists, but the claim of causation (that wearing black gets one into the club) is no longer valid. That's essentially the same role (D) plays.

Again, this is a fairly common, albeit challenging, way to weaken, so it's good you noticed the issue, and I hope this has been helpful!

[njw5d]

Hi,

I would like help understanding why D is necessarily a better answer than B. As I understand the argument, the stimulus presents a correlation between average fat intake and the incidence of cancer. The conclusion states that reducing fat intake will reduce an individual's risk of cancer.

This seems a clear case of mistaking correlation for causality. Hence, anything that can cast doubt on the causality would weaken the argument. Answer D does this by suggesting that a third factor, environmental pollution, could be contributing to high incidence rates of cancer.

Where I'm stuck is distinguishing this answer from B. If my analysis above is correct, it seems it could just as easily apply to answer B: Answer B weakens the argument by suggesting that a third factor, wealth, could be contributing to high incidence rates of cancer. I don't see anything in the language of answer B or D that would lead one to distinguish between them, and both wealth and environmental factors seem equally plausible contributors to cancer.

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

It's pretty clear how environmental pollution can contribute to cancer. I don't see a connection between wealth and cancer. Radioactive money?

[tommyid1]

I understand the weakening effect of D, but could someone explain why C does not weaken the argument?

Thank you in advance

[bbirdwell]

The fact that cancer is a "prominent" cause of death in certain countries doesn't weaken the idea that lowering my fat intake will reduce my cancer risk.

Perhaps "prominent" means 10% of deaths. Even though the country has low avg fat intake, perhaps those 10% have extremely high fat intake.

[anniekim89]

For C, could I have argued that we're looking for the relation between fat intake and the risk of getting cancer, and don't really care about the fact that cancer is a prominent cause of death? Since even if cancer is a prominent cause of death, it doesn't say anything about the risk of actually getting cancer.

Please let me know if I have that right or wrong. Thank you in advance!

[Shiggins]

Where I'm stuck is distinguishing this answer from B. If my analysis above is correct, it seems it could just as easily apply to answer B: Answer B weakens the argument by suggesting that a third factor, wealth, could be contributing to high incidence rates of cancer. I don't see anything in the language of answer B or D that would lead one to distinguish between them, and both wealth and environmental factors seem equally plausible contributors to cancer.

Thanks

I see what you mean. Maybe my reasoning can help.

Choice B introduces the term "wealthiest". Now are the countries wealthy or individuals. Lets say the countries are wealthy, so that particular country has a high fat intake. Now maybe the government subsidizes healthcare to lower cholesterol in those individuals. That is another way to lower risk of cancer. So yea you are right. Wealth can be an influence.

But WAIT!!

This would be a good choice if the conclusion had said that "the ONLY way" to reduce an individuals risk of cancer is through lowering fat intake. It does not state this. This choice also has no bearing on the conclusion. Lets say there are these gov subsidies that do lower people's risk. Can people still lower their fat intake to lower risk of cancer?
Their is a lot to assume here so that is something that makes this not a good choice.

Choice D, you are not making a really big leap. And you are right in your reasoning of why it is right.

I hope the hypothetical situation did not confuse you. I used it bc you had wanted an understanding of why it is not a good choice compared to D.

If anyone wants to add or correct me, much appreciated.

[velvet]

Can someone give me a solid reason to rule out E?
I have a feeling this is one of those 'generic' incorrect answers...Does it have to do with the passage making a correlation containing averages, and the individual is not the issue?

[timmydoeslsat]

Can someone give me a solid reason to rule out E?
I have a feeling this is one of those 'generic' incorrect answers...Does it have to do with the passage making a correlation containing averages, and the individual is not the issue?

Absolutely. An individual person is not going to weaken an idea associated with intake of fat for residents of a country.

What is also interesting about this stimulus is the unnecessary information given.

We know that the higher X means the higher Y.

This necessarily means that the lower X means the lower Y.

In other words, a negation of sorts is valid on these relative claims.

[bramon.elizabeth]

When we see "should" in the conclusion, can we still use conditional logic to express it? I think so, right?

The problem is, if we express this conclusion as -c --> -f (contrapositive f-->c), answer choice C looks really attractive to me!

(D) says there might be a different reason for cancer (though we need to assume something to know this - red flag to me...) This presumes to state that other things can cause cancer, but that doesn't specifically undermine f-->c. Aside from the whole assuming thing, I can see why (D) is right.

(C), however, says there's no correlation, which is exactly what we want to say. (C) says the low fat intake doesn't necessarily lead to cancer, which shoots for the jugular with this conclusion, doesn't it? -f --> c would destroy the conclusion completely.

So, my questions:
-If a question is in the Assumption family, can a correct answer still require us to make assumptions?
-Doesn't negating the sufficient make the entire presumed relationship fall apart?

Thanks in advance!!

[patrice.antoine]

LSAT with their leaps again. Sometimes we can take leaps and sometimes we can't. We are to somehow assume environmental pollution can cause cancer?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

When we see "should" in the conclusion, can we still use conditional logic to express it? I think so, right?

No, but good question. The reason is that causation should not be put into conditional notation. It should simply be understood as implying causality.

So, my questions:
-If a question is in the Assumption family, can a correct answer still require us to make assumptions?
-Doesn't negating the sufficient make the entire presumed relationship fall apart?

Thanks in advance!!

To your first question about requiring assumptions, the correct answer should not, but you can use reasonable judgment to make connections.

To your second question, the negation test will not be effective on a question that asks you to weaken the argument.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

LSAT with their leaps again. Sometimes we can take leaps and sometimes we can't. We are to somehow assume environmental pollution can cause cancer?

Yes, sometimes we have to make those connections. Environmental pollution is reasonably considered to cause cancer, but "wealth" in answer choice (B) is not. You still have to use reasonable judgement on the LSAT.

[bernard.agrest]

So I def need help with this question.

The conclusion was If a person wants to reduce their chance of getting cancer, they should cut down on their fat intake.

This is supported by two premises

A) High Fat = High cancer and
B) Low Fat = Law cancer.

A) Traditional diets don't do anything for us.

B) Wealthiest don't do anything for us.

C) The only reasons I can think of eliminating C are A) The use of "Prominent" - but that seems to correlate pretty well with the stimulus choice of using "incidence" or B) It's use of countries vs the conclusions use of "individual."

D) I HATE this answer choice. It isn't a very clear answer choice, the assumption I have to make, That E.P leads to cancer rates, and that these countries with high fat rates have the SPECIFIC type of E.P that leads to cancer are a bit absurd IMO. I can def see why it is the answer, but it's a little out there, and the reason I eliminated it.

E) This doesn't address the issue of cancer at all, so we eliminate it quickly.

So i was down to C and D, and chose C because D was a little too "reachy" for me.

Any tips on when it's okay to reach this far? and when not to?

[gaheexlee]

Any tips on when it's okay to reach this far? and when not to?

This question - and specifically answer choices C and D- help illustrate how the LSAT works.

What were the words that stuck out at you for your two last contending answer choices, C and D? For me, they were "prominent" and "environmental pollution" respectively.

Like you, I thought "environmental pollution" was out of scope and eliminated (D).

And I thought (C) was correct because it showed that cancer still persisted in countries with low levels of fat intake.

But recall what type of question we're working with here. Weakening. Weakening questions belong to the assumption family so we need to identify and assess the core, but they also require us to consider how new information relates to the reasoning given. (MLSAT LR book, pg 246 haha)

So when we keep in mind that new information on Weakening questions can't really be dismissed immediately, and then compare the two keywords that stick out to us, it's easy to see which is the correct answer.

The word "prominent" is very vague. Like Brian (bbirdwell) said, maybe "prominent" only refers to a small number of cancer rates in that country with low levels of fat intake. We have no idea. And so to pick (C) based on this word would require us to make the unwarranted assumption that "prominent" refers to an overwhelmingly large statistic like 98%.

Tl;dr -- (C) has ambiguity that can go either way and support or weaken the stimulus. (D) has new information but one that can be condoned given the question type at hand.

[WaltGrace1983]

I also thought that (C) and (D) were by far the most challenging answer choices. I'll take this one from top to bottom.

Higher fat intake --> Higher incidence of cancer
+
Lower fat intake --> Lower incidence of cancer
-->
Want to reduce cancer? --> Reduce fat intake

The biggest thing to note, as everyone already has, is that this is a standard correlation/causation flaw. Just because the higher fat intake is correlated with a higher incidence of cancer and the lower fat intake is correlated with a lower incidence of cancer doesn't mean that fat caused cancer. A multitude of other things might have caused the cancer, not specifically the fat.

A correct answer will do one of the following things:

(1) Give an alternative explanation ("maybe it was something else that caused the cancer")
(2) Show the cause (fat) without the effect (cancer)
(3) Show the effect (cancer) without the cause (fat)

First, the "easier" ones to eliminate.

(A) We don't care about what the difference in fat intake is due to. We care about what the difference in cancer rates is due to. Talking about WHY the fat intake is the way it is will NOT help us with the question of what caused the cancer.

(B) This has been discussed above. One might be able to say that this is giving an alternative explanation: wealth. However, this seems a bit far-fetched, as has been mentioned.

(E) This falls in line with the argument. The argument never said that EVERY person in a country with a higher average fat intake has the same amount of fat in the diet. The argument was just going for general trends. Also, there is nothing causal in nature about this answer choice.

Now onto the "harder" answer choices...

(C) What makes this incredibly tempting is that it uses the word "cause" and, in a correlation/causation argument, nothing is better than seeing the word "cause" in the answer choice. "Cause" establishes a causation, destabilizing the argument.

However, "cause" is not used in a particularly helpful way here. "Cause" doesn't refer to the cause of cancer. It refers to the cause of death. It says that cancer causes death. We want to show that something causes cancer.

Now moving past this, the other thing that trips me up is the word, "prominent." I thought, "well there must be a very prominent relationship between cancer and fat: (C) says that low-fat means high cancer. This must weaken!"

This type of thinking is not true though because it is an absolute statement while the argument is based off of a relative statement. The argument never denies that cancer might be "prominent" in low-fat countries or high-fat countries. It simply says that there is a HIGHER incidence of cancer with a HIGHER incidence of fat. It is a sliding scale. But a LOWER incidence of fat doesn't mean a LOW incidence of cancer; it simply means a LOWER incidence of cancer. This, to me, is the critical notion that makes (C) wrong.

(C) could have been right if it said, "For those that have cancer, low fat intake is a prominent cause of cancer in countries with a low average fat intake." This would take the correlation that the argument gives and make it just that: a correlation - NOT a cause.

(D) is correct because it gives an alternative explanation: pollution. It is saying that maybe FAT doesn't cause cancer; maybe POLLUTION does.

[shmhf666]

this is really a tricky question and i want to share some of my thoughts here.

Even if some of you may hinge on the ambiguousness of the word prominent in answer choice C,which is by far the most tempting answer choice in this question,the bigger trick the LSAT is playing here is not THIS!!!!!

THE key is this: it confuses two groups ( people who have cancer and people who die because of cancer)using a percentage(prominent).

This trick has been played at least once in the previous test: PT 13 S2 24

What answer choice C is saying is that a very high percentage of death is due to cancer. So, what is the base number of death?????? Is it only 10? SO 9 of them is caused by cancer. That is very consistent with the stimulus that low fat intake is in correlation with a low cancer rate !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it turns out answer choice C doesn't weaken the argument at all .

[hayleychen12]

Here's what I think about C:
If you take a really good looking into the stimulus, you will find that what it is saying is that there is a correlation between high fat intake and cancer. the higher the fat intake, the more likely that you'll get cancer.
But in C, it is actually stating that cancer is a prominent (lets say more than 50% of death) cause of death IN country with low average fat intake.
See the difference?

For instance, in a low fate intake country, the 54% cancer-caused death rate maybe is itself a result of lower fat intake( although it is still the no.1 reason of death) , and 54%is still lower than other higher fat intake country.