Q14 - Scientists have shown that

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Foraging causes the increased brain size of older bees.
Evidence: Older bees generally have bigger brains than younger bees, older bees do more foraging and less tending to babies than younger bees, and foraging requires more cognition than tending to babies.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a classic correlation-causality setup. From the correlation between foraging and bigger brains (both traits associated with older bees), the authro concludes that foraging CAUSES the bigger brains. We want to always consider OTHER ways to explain the same correlation (maybe the bigger brain came first, and THAT's how that bee got chosen to forage .... maybe there's just something genetic that leads to both foraging abilities and bigger brains) as well as evidence that would affect the plausibility of the AUTHOR'S STORY (f.e., among ants, the ones who forage have smaller brains than those who don't)

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This looks like a decent plausibility answer. These answers generally take the form of more examples of Cause/Effect going hand in hand (to strengthen) or not going hand in hand (to weaken). This answer is arguing "if the author's story about foraging leading to bigger brains is right, then how come MORE FORAGING doesn't lead to BIGGER BRAINS?" Ultimately, this is a matter of degree. (E) is a better answer. The author is only arguing that foraging leads to older bees' bigger brains (compared to young bees). The author doesn't need to assume that the longer you forage, the bigger your brain would be to still be correct.

(B) This also looks like a decent plausibility answer. This is NO CAUSE, EFFECT. When the cause (foraging) is removed, the effect (bigger brain) remains. So was foraging really the cause? Ultimately, (E) is a better answer. The author is only claiming that foraging leads to the bigger brains of older bees. She doesn't have to assume that once foraging has inflated a brain, the brain will deflate back to a smaller size once the foraging stops.

(C) The author never promised that anything about the distance/time you spend foraging. She doesn't need to assume that the FARTHER you go to forage, the bigger your brain.

(D) This is a very weak claim. In at least one species of bees, the correlation barely applies. Who cares? The correlation is just that older bees TEND to have bigger brains. We don't need them to ALWAYS have bigger brains.

(E) YES! This is the strongest counterpunch, because this provides the most direct comparison about whether foraging makes a difference. This is the ultimate NO CAUSE, EFFECT weaken answer. If bees who never forage have the same brain size as foraging bees, then foraging is not the answer to the bigger brain mystery.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a good example of the rare Strengthen/Weaken question where the correct answer is NOT the only one that moves in the right direction, but it moves the STRONGEST in the right direction. (A) and (B) are not great answers, but I would consider them if I had nothing else to choose from. This reminds us that Strengthen/Weaken questions are ones for which we'll almost always need to read all five answer choices in order to choose.

#officialexplanation

[jimmy902o]

I can see why E is correct but still having trouble with A and C. I chose C because i though the conclusion was causal so more foraging equals larger brain

[timmydoeslsat]

So we want to weaken a causal argument.

We have the correlation of older bees foraging outside of hive and younger bees staying in the hive and the larger brain size of the older bees.

As you said, (E) is definitely correct as it shows the presumed cause is absent yet the presumed effect still remains, that is the larger brains are still present.

The problem with (A) is that it is not ruining the act of foraging as a cause of a larger brain. "Foraging for a long time type brains" are not significantly larger than the "foraging short time type brains" does not give us an indication that foraging is not in fact making their brains larger than otherwise.

Answer choice (C) suffers from the same kind of issue. Both of these instances involve foraging outside of the hive. The evidence we had involved those bees that stayed in the hive. The length of a forage is not going to help us with a causal argument involving those leaving the hive and those staying in the hive.

[bbirdwell]

I agree with timmydoeslsat. Just to re-iterate:

(C) is out because the DISTANCE of the forage is not part of the original argument. The argument is simply about foraging. In fact, rather than "short distance" vs "long distance," the original is simply "inside" vs "outside."

(A) is very similar -- TIME has nothing to do with the original. Simply, "foraging" leads to increased brain size. Not foraging for a short vs long time. Therefore this is irrelevant.

Notice also how the original, and the correct answer, describe not just bees, but "older bees." A and C talk about bees at large. This is not necessarily a reason to eliminate them, but raises red flags. Likewise, the presence of "older bees" in E doesn't make it right, but it helps us lean in that direction...

[jrnlsn.nelson]

Also, carefully look at what (E) is saying:

"The brains of older bees that never learn to forage are the same size as those of their foraging counterparts of the same age."

To re-phrase, this is explicitly saying: "The brains of older bees that have never foraged before are just as large as the brains of bees, of the same age (this is key), that forage."

Thus, perhaps it's aging that causes an increase in brain size rather than foraging.

This is a classic LSAT way to weaken a causal argument -- show that the effect still occurs when the cause is absent. Remember, the conclusion of the stimulus is purporting "it appears that foraging leads to (i.e. causes) the increased brain size of older bees."

[mswang7]

Premises: Older bees, forage outside hive, larger brains
Younger bees stay in to attend to young
Foraging requires more cognitive than attending to young
Conc: Foraging causes the bigger brains

Prephrase: This is a classic a&b happen together therefore a causes b so I'm looking for an instance where b (bigger brains) causes a (forgaing)or a occurs without b

A. Hmm this is trying to show us more foraging does not lead to a bigger brain, I see how it can weaken the argument
B. This shows not foraging does not cause a smaller brain. Also, I can see how it attempts to weaken the argument, lets keep for now
C. Distance is not relevant here
D. It's trying to show there isn't much difference in some species (assuming they also have the same division & duties) but this is out of scope
E. This fits our prephrase of an instance where foraging occurs without bigger brains and notice the strong language "never" makes it a lot better answer than A or B