Q13 - When several of a dermatologist's

[LSAT-Chang]

This question didn't seem so bad at first, but I had a hard time choosing between (A) and (D). I was also not too confident eliminating (B).

I think that (D) would strengthen the argument since it makes it more plausible that they actually used the telephones.. or now that I look at it again, it might be just a premise-booster since we are told that these patients used telephones?

[timmydoeslsat]

There is a correlation between these rashes and phones. However, the doctor decides to conclude cause with not only it being phones, BUT PROLONGED CONTACT. The dermatologist really oversteps some bounds here.

Nonetheless, four of these answer choices will gives us additional support for what the dermatologist did. Let us see if we can help this person out.

A) Helps for sure. It shows that it is even possible for a phone to cause a rash.

B) This helps too. The rash occurred on just one side of a person's face. The idea that OTHER devices were used equally on both sides of the face helps the idea. If the other devices were used equally on both sides of the face, then how can the rash occur on just one side? This gives the dermatologist more ammo to conclude cause with phones.

C) This helps with the issue of these guys having the opportunity to have prolonged contact with a phone.

D) Tempting. No decision made for now.

E) Definitely strengthens the correlation.

Back to D. We know from the stimulus that these people used phones. Look at the line where it says "on the side of the face to which the telephone was held..." That proves these people used phones!

[LSAT-Chang]

So I guess (D) is just a premise-booster and premise-boosters don't really STRENGTHEN the overall argument?? Since it is just a repeat of a stated fact?? Would you agree?

I've noticed that I tend to pick premise-boosting answers for a couple strengthen questions -- I think I just have this bad notion in my head that if they say it once more, it strengthens the argument lol

[timmydoeslsat]

Since we know that those with the rashes use phones, that statement does not even strengthen this situation or boost that premise. We have already establish that they use phones.

You are saying that more humans than just those with rashes use phones, but I would not categorize that as strengthening the previously mentioned premise.

[timsportschuetz]

Also, respecting answer choice [D], it seems to actually slightly weaken the argument. If there are lots of people using telephones around the world, wouldn't we be questioning why there aren't more cases of the rash on people's faces? Again, this answer is an extremely weak weakener! As you can see, you would have to make some serious logical leaps and unwarranted assumptions to actually weaken the conclusion. Since unwarranted logical in answer choices are never warranted, we can clearly see that this is the credited answer choice (since it is an EXCEPT question).

[WaltGrace1983]

I think that the easiest way to understand this question, and thus be able to apply this understanding to other questions, is to simply think of (B) as ruling out alternative explanations.

The conclusion is a causal statement. The doctor is more or less saying, "The rash was caused by prolonged contact with telephones - telephones only - nothing else." Thus, with (B), we are strengthening this idea by showing that it probably could not have been other devices. Why? Because other devices were used on both sides of the face, not just one. Thus, if the other devices actually did cause a rash, it would probably be on both sides of the face.

(A) is not the best strengthener. In fact, I don't even think it is very good. Yet it does strengthen, just very mildly. It strengthens because it shows that telephones can be the source of allergy. The problematic part of it rests in its use of "many" and "some." We don't know if the patients are a part of the "some" group of people who are allergic. Also, we don't know if these patients used one of the "many" telephones that were made with this material.

(C) and (E) are great strengtheners because they both show that extensive use was correlated with the rash. Extensive use is, after all, what we are talking about in the first place.

(D) doesn't strengthen. We already know that telephones are used by these people. It says so. The stimulus says that "the rash occured on the side of the face to which the telephone was held." It is NOT saying something like, "the rash occurred on the side of the face to which many people hold the telephone." No. We are establishing that these patients did in fact hold the telephone there.

In addition, think about the conclusion. The conclusion is talking about prolonged contact. Thus, not only does the doctor not question that it was the telephone, the doctor also says that the telephone wasn't exactly the problem as much as the extensiveness of one's use. (D) doesn't really address this. It just says that most people use the telephone in the first world. That does very little to the argument.