Q18 - Medical researcher: A survey of more than 1 million

[morgan.namian]

Having trouble understanding why E is wrong.

Study showed that there was a greater frequency of illness among people who slept more than among people who slept significantly less → mild sleep deprivation is not unhealthy, and it probably protects against illness

A. Fails to address possibility that a correlation between two phenomena (illness and amount of sleep) is due to another factor that causally contributes to both phenomena. This could be - what if being asleep and breathing stale air is actually the cause here so sleeping more exposes you longer and sleeping less exposes you less. This is the correct answer.

BUT

E. The answer reads: "fails to consider that even if a [specific negative consequence] is not associated with a [given phenomenon], [that phenomenon] may have other negative consequences"

I replaced the bracketed parts with the relevant pieces from the stimulus, which ended up looking like this: "fails to consider that even if greater frequency of illness is not associated with sleep deprivation, then sleep deprivation may have other negative consequences."

Isn't this a valid criticism?

[maryadkins]

Tricky, I'm with you.

Here's the thing.

1. I'm not sure "illness" is a "specific negative consequence." It's pretty general, actually.

2. More importantly, I'm not sure the argument assumes that sleep deprivation has no negative consequences that are irrelevant to making people ill (which it doesn't, according to the argument). It just isn't considering those consequences. So, for example, maybe it makes it harder for people to focus, or makes people cranky. But they could still be "healthy" and have improved defenses against illness under this argument. Those things aren't being assumed away by the argument, in other words.

(A) avoids these possibilities.

As for the others:

(B) says that "even if a factor causally contributes" and I'm already done with it—we weren't told anything about causation (in fact, that's the problem)

(C) uses the word "claim" a lot to confuse you and I can't even make sense of it

(D) again, like (B), we have causation coming in here as if that was a given rather than an assumption

[maria487]

Can you please further clarify why (E) is incorrect?

Tricky, I'm with you.

Here's the thing.

1. I'm not sure "illness" is a "specific negative consequence." It's pretty general, actually.

2. More importantly, I'm not sure the argument assumes that sleep deprivation has no negative consequences that are irrelevant to making people ill (which it doesn't, according to the argument). It just isn't considering those consequences. So, for example, maybe it makes it harder for people to focus, or makes people cranky. But they could still be "healthy" and have improved defenses against illness under this argument. Those things aren't being assumed away by the argument, in other words.

(A) avoids these possibilities.

As for the others:

(B) says that "even if a factor causally contributes" and I'm already done with it—we weren't told anything about causation (in fact, that's the problem)

(C) uses the word "claim" a lot to confuse you and I can't even make sense of it

(D) again, like (B), we have causation coming in here as if that was a given rather than an assumption

[tommywallach]

I'm afraid Mary kinda laid out the best reasons!

[phoebster21]

Question:
IF the stimulus ended on the word "unhealthy," THEN could answer E work?

Is E wrong because it specifically qualifies the conclusion (and the correlation) to just sleep and illness?

[phoebster21]

I'm afraid Mary kinda laid out the best reasons!

Question:
IF the stimulus ended on the word "unhealthy," THEN could answer E work?

Is E wrong because it specifically qualifies the conclusion (and the correlation) to just sleep and illness?

[sanchez.zoilac]

Why is B incorrect? Is it partially true in capturing the 8 hour sleep effect?

[renata.gomez]

I know the Dec. is two days aways, but can someone clarify why the researcher isn't assuming E? I chose E because the conclusion is pretty strong (that it's not unhealthy) while the support is simply about illness.

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm assuming you already read Mary's thoughts in the 2nd post.

I think LSAT was thinking of "not unhealthy" and "bolsters against illness" as two different marks on the same continuum.

<---promotes illness----neither healthy nor unhealthy ---prevents illness-->

So hear the conclusion more like, "Not only is X not gonna cost you money, it'll probably, in fact, MAKE you some money!"

If we started using synonyms, we might get a claim like
"Not only is X not gonna decrease your wealth, it'll probably MAKE you some money."

I see your concern with "health" feeling like a broader category than "illness".

Even if something doesn't impact my chance of getting an illness, it might still impact my health in some other way, depending on how we define health.

But you COULD define "health" as "the absence of illness".

Our modern culture tinges "health" with all these other wellness associations like agility, flexibility, spirituality, etc.

So we react to this conclusion a little like "Hey, man, even if I pretended that you had convinced me that mild sleep deprivation isn't more likely to make me ill, I couldn't jump to the claim that it's not unhealthy!"

The other thing to keep in mind is that (E) feels way more like it's fighting the internal reasoning of the conclusion itself, rather than addressing the evidence used to get us to that conclusion.

(A) would fight the argument further upstream. It's like, "Whoa, don't even think about saying "this SHOWS" that sleep deprivation caused something".

[IsS885]

Okay I just made an account to help people out with this one, BC I arrived at a completely different way to eliminate E. Its descriptively inaccurate because the argument is not stating that illness is not associated with sleep depravation at all, just less associated in a very specific comparison. Not associated, would mean it doesn't occur together at all. This answer choice is bait IMO, it tries to address the "not unhealthy" part in the conclusion, which is a flaw(too strong,FTC just because it has this benefit, doesn't mean that its not unhealthy for other reasons), but it doesn't do it correctly. A is correct BC it addresses the other flaw, causation correlation and and does so correctly.

[seychelles1718]

When I first read the stimulus, it discusses a survey so one of the anticipations I had was to weaken it by pointing out any meaningful difference between the two groups (sleep a lot vs less sleep) in order to Invalidiate the comparison.

Turns out this was not really effective... Arent we supposed to watch out for any conclusions drawn from comparions in studies, experiments, and surveys?

[ohthatpatrick]

Two things:

1. You can't get downtrodden when an LSAT question doesn't live up to the tendency you've grown to expect. A standardized test has tendencies, not absolutes.

Yes, you should definitely be thinking through potential issues with surveys, with comparing two groups, with correlation vs. causality.

But we always need to stay flexible and be willing to entertain answer choices describing a different problem with the argument or describing the problem we anticipated in an unexpected way.

2. Your premonition that "one of the anticipations I had was to weaken it by pointing out any meaningful difference between the two groups (sleep a lot vs less sleep) in order to Invalidiate the comparison" is exactly the thing that (A) is referring to, vaguely.

The "another factor" is the "meaningful difference".

Perhaps the "other factor / meaningful difference" is whether you work in a school or hospital.

That factor separately causes you to be exhausted (and need 8+ hrs of sleep) and to be sick a lot (you're around kids and hospital patients all the time).

Maybe THAT'S the meaningful difference between 8+ hr sleepers and people who sleep way less.

[AlisaS425]

Regarding (E). If it were true that sleep deprivation may have other negative consequences, it does NOT weaken the argument. Even if it has negative results like "easily becoming angry" or "couldn't focus well" (as previous poster said), that doesn't mean sleep deprivation is unhealthy. Perhaps compared to the greater frequency of illnesses that sleep-too-much people have, the above negative results are healthier.

That's how I read (E) and then eliminate it.

On the other hand, (A) brings up the "third factor" which could weaken the connection between the premise (correlation) and the conclusion (causation).

If my reasoning above is wrong, please feel free to correct me!

[andreperez7]

TLDR: The problem is a 3rd cause, something like stress or poor nutrition, causing both less sleep and illness.