Q14 - It is inaccurate to say

[roflcoptersoisoi]

For PR questions it is imperative that you are able to take note of it's reasoning and logical structure without reference to the subject matter. This is because those guys at LSAC will often include a trap answer that has the same topic as that included in the stimulus and 9/10 it will be wrong.

In abstract terms the argument can be depicted as:

X can cause Y
Y can cause Z
-------------------
not necessarily the case that X cannot cause Z

But for practicality:

HRS can cause OW
OW can cause OD
--------------------------
not necessarily the case that HRS cannot cause OD


Characteristics of incorrect answer choices:
Conclusion mismatch
Premises mismatch
Mismatch in the reasoning and logical structure of the argument.

(A) conclusion and premise mismatch, eliminate.
The conclusion in this argument states:
Not the case that CA can cause CC.
We need the two subjects in the conclusion to be involved in a not both relationship. Further, the premises do not link up like they do in the argument.

(B) Conclusion and premise mismatch, eliminate.
While there is a not both relationship between both subjects, the conclusion is not negated. Further the premises include existential quantifiers like "some" which differs from the logical used in the premises in the original argument.

(C) Conclusion mismatch, eliminate.
The conclusion is neither negated nor does it include a not both relationship between the subjects. The premises link up nicely however.

(D) Bingo.

Conclusion matches up nicely:
not necessarily the cause that IMO cannot cause PGM
It is both negated and includes a not both relationship between the subjects

Premises link up the exact same nicely too:
IMO can cause VD
VD can cause PSGM

(E) Tempting, but a conclusion mismatch, eliminate.
The conclusion is negated but there is not a not both relationship between the two subjects.

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice work! You did great at summarizing so many of the accompanying strategies and pitfalls of this question type!

Just to clarify, for myself and future readers, every time you were referring to "not both" relationship, you're saying "high sugar can't cause diabetes" is a not both relationship?

If so, it's not quite saying they're mutually exclusive (if that's what you mean by not both), just that there is no causal relationship there.

I would also suggest cleaning up the way you're expressing the conclusion, and more simply saying that the conclusion is "X can cause Y", or "high sugar CAN cause diabetes".

If I say "It's inaccurate to say X is false", it would be easier to just say "X is true".

[AndreX682]

Sorry but I still cannot totally understand why C is wrong.

As saying “it is correct to say X is right” is identical to saying “it is incorrect to say X is wrong”, when transformed in this way, the structure of C seems nice.

Or is it wrong because it says a “primary cause” but the stimulus does not?