Q18 - In order to control

[tamwaiman]

I was wavering between (D) and (E)--both are not perfect for me.

(D) Because the argument indicates that no one would eat even one entire deer a day, therefore, the hormone is not necessarily null in the female deer. For example, a female deer is allowed for maybe 1mg hormone since no one would eat a whole a day.

(E) "Most" is not necessarily be true.

BTW, I got screwed in PT8 and the book 10 Actual PTs does not include this one, is it because PT8 is a DIFFERENT PT?

Thank you.

[slimjimsquinn]

This was my reasoning for the correct answer. Hope it helps

First, identify the conclusion and how it is supported by the premise.

P: Humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of the hormone a day without adverse affects

P: No one would eat even one entire deer in one day
-meaning if they did eat a deer injected with the hormone, the maximum of the hormone they would ingest is 10).
- since only anything MORE than 10 mg is unsafe, anything LESS than 10 mg is a-ok


Flawed assumption: If there were hormones that already existed, that, coupled with the 10 hormones form the inject would tip the milligram count to MORE than 10. Thus, making it unsafe. Ex. If the deer naturally made 2 mg on its own, an additional 10 mg from the injection would bring the total mg count to 12. 10 is the threshold to be safe. 12 would not make it unsafe.

Our task is to support the biologist's conclusion that ingesting this hormone is safe.


D) Is the correct answer because it fixes the flaw by taking away the possibility that hormones can come from a place OTHER than the injections.

Hope this helps! I made the mistake the first time around,too!

[giladedelman]

Great explanation! Let me know if this one is still unclear for any reason.

[uhdang]

After about four years from the last post, I thought I'd give this a shot with reasonings for incorrect answers.

Here is the Core:

Humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of hormone a day without any adverse effect + no one eats one entire deer a day ==> treatment is safe.

The author assumes that eating an injected deer meat is the only way for a human to consume hormone. What if there are other ways that people consume hormone? Maybe processed food these days have hormones in them, thereby total consumption for hormone a day is pretty close to 10 milligrams already, in which case eating small amount of deer would spike up hormone level well above safety.

Now, let's get into Answer Choices.

A) We are concerned with safety of injecting hormone into deers, even if people get notified and not eat deers, it would infect possibly make people to be cautious, but it doesn't prove the safety of the treatment.

B) What effect specifically will have on people is not our concern. Whether it will be safe or not is. This is out of scope.

C) Just like A), this is talking about other issue than ours. This might result in successfully suppressing deer population, but it won't prove the treatment's safety. This is out of scope.

D) This exploits our assumption that there might be other ways for people to consume more hormone than permissible amount, and eliminates one possible scenario. If female deer produces the hormone already (negating the answer choice), injecting hormone would certainly bring up what people consume, and raises a possible safety issue. And this would destroy argument.

E) Just another premise booster. Irrelevant.

While I was writing this, one question came up. When the passage states, "humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of the hormone a day without any adverse effects", does this eliminate any possibilities of hormone getting accumulated in human body? Is it safet to say that ingested hormone gets disappeared after 24 hours and this is not assumed but stated from this statement?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Sweet breakdown, uhdang!

One thing that's really interesting about answer choices (A) and (C) is that they would be great answers for a slightly different argument. But in this argument, the biologist may as well be saying "hunt when you want, no one needs to be notified, because even in the craziest situation, no one's going to eat enough deer meat for this to matter".

And that might be true - if this injection were the only source of the hormone people were eating! Nice job locking it up on (D).

As for your question

While I was writing this, one question came up. When the passage states, "humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of the hormone a day without any adverse effects", does this eliminate any possibilities of hormone getting accumulated in human body? Is it safety to say that ingested hormone gets disappeared after 24 hours and this is not assumed but stated from this statement?

Sort of. This tells me that as long as the intake is less than or equal to 10mg/day, I'm fine. I have no idea whether this is because the hormone is eliminated from the body daily, or broken down, or whether there's something magical about the amount ingested that makes it different from 'old hormone still in the body', but I don't need to know. None of that matters - the important thing is: as long as I'm taking in 10mg or under per day, I'm safe.

Nice breakdown, and great question. Keep engaging like this, and you'll be an LSAT rockstar in no time.