Q14 - Researchers recently studied the

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
In a study, those eating the most chocolate were also the most depressed. Therefore, chocolate causes depression.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument commits the classic Correlation/Causation Flaw, but I want to mirror my thought process here a bit to show you want I'd be thinking as I read this.

First, I see a study was done. Was the sample representative and big enough? Yep, there was a diverse sample of 1,000 adults, so that looks good. Samples also, though, tend to find correlations and conclude causation, so I'll be on the lookout for that.

Ah, there's my correlation! "Those who A are also B." Looks like this is heading in a Correlation/Causation direction. Since it's dealing with feelings, I'd do a quick check to see if there could be a Perception vs. Reality flaw here based on people self-reporting, but the statement is that they "were the most likely to feel depressed" which establishes it as a fact; if the P vs. R flaw was going to be an issue, that'd probably be phrased as, "were the most likely to report feeling depressed."

Alright, quick check on the conclusion to make sure it's causal; it is! So this is almost certainly going to have a Correlation/Causation answer. However! The chocolate/mood connection is a common one on the LSAT, and it tends to either phrase the answer as there being possible reverse causation ("When some people get depressed, they eat chocolate to make themselves feel better") or a third cause ("Stress causes people to both feel depressed and find ways to attempt to feel better, such as enjoying their favorite foods"), so I'll be on the lookout for answers in that vein.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Tempting. However, two issues with this answer. First, the argument doesn't establish it as a fact that a substance (chocolate) causally contributes to a condition (depression). The problem is that it only establishes a correlation between these two. Second, if something is a cause of a given effect, then it's not improper to infer removing it would alleviate the issue! It is, however, a flaw to infer it would eliminate the condition (as this answer choice states), but the conclusion here only mentions the mood would improve.

(B) Wrong flaw (Sampling). There's no reason to believe a diverse group of 1,000 isn't unrepresentative.

(C) Bingo! They didn't go the reversed causality/third cause route; this is the traditional Correlation/Causation answer.

(D) Wrong flaw (Illegal reversal). This argument doesn't have conditional logic, so this answer choice is out of contention.

(E) Wrong flaw (Vagueness?). The conclusion is pretty specific here.

Takeaway/Pattern:
The thought process that goes into working on an LR question is a very active process that involves analyzing the type of information presented while thinking about prior questions and patterns on the test. I hope the summary above gives you some insight into how you should be approaching the stimulus!

#officialexplanation

[vedanta]

May someone explain why A is incorrect? I was between A and C but sided with A as I felt it was more specific, but upon re-reading it is the word "eliminate" too strong for A to be correct?

Thanks =)

[maryadkins]

One major problem with (A) that I notice right away is that (A) claims there is already a causal relationship! "Infers...FROM THE FACT THAT A SUBSTANCE CAUSALLY CONTRIBUTES..."

But it DOESN'T causally contribute, as far as we know. The argument is assuming that chocolate causes depression when really, they're only correlated (which is what (C) says).

Be on the look out for answer choices that claim there is causation in a premise when there isn't.

(B) makes it about the sample, but the biggest flaw here is correlation-causation. The sample size is diverse, we're told, and fairly larg.e

(D) claims that there is reversed logic: not the problem here.

(E) vaguely? No, it's pretty clear. It's just flawed.

Hope this helps.

[vedanta]

One major problem with (A) that I notice right away is that (A) claims there is already a causal relationship! "Infers...FROM THE FACT THAT A SUBSTANCE CAUSALLY CONTRIBUTES..."

But it DOESN'T causally contribute, as far as we know. The argument is assuming that chocolate causes depression when really, they're only correlated (which is what (C) says).

Cleared it right up for me, thanks maryadkins!