Q19 - Although high cholesterol levels

[joyce.hau]

I'd answered B for this one. Can someone please tell me why C is the correct answer? I thought the right answer had to somehow point out the flaw of attributing heart disease to lipoprotein (a), bolstered by the fact that dietary changes had no effect on lipoprotein (a) levels.

The discussion merely presented the presence of lipoprotein (a) in the blood of many people with heart disease. It never talks about the causal link between the protein and heart disease, which is why I thought B must be the answer.

Please help!! Thank you so much

[noah]

Doesn't it seem like LSAC really cares about our health? There seems to be some question about heart health each time!

This is a flaw question, so let's figure out the core of the argument. The conclusion is that there's no reason to change one's diet to prevent heart disease -- it must not do a thing! That's a pretty strong conclusion. What's that based on? It turns out that lipo (do you really want me to type out lipoprotein(a) over and over again?) is not affected by diet, and lipo is found in the blood of folks with heart disease that was definitely not caused by high cholesterol. So, in short, if you change your diet, while you can effect your cholesterol level, you can't change your lipo level, and lipo seems to be found in the blood of folks whose heart disease is because of something other than high cholesterol.

It's pretty hard to see through this argument, but there's a fishy section: if diet does affect cholesterol, which we learn early on is associated with heart disease, can we really say there's NO reason to change one's diet just because diet can't change the lipo level? What if lipo is in lots of people's blood, and you could fix the cholesterol, positively affect one's chance of having heart disease, but not change the lipo level? That sounds like a good thing to do!

(C) points out this flaw -- the argument mentions that high cholesterol is linked to heart disease, but doesn't take that into account when ruling out the usefulness of dieting.

(A) is incorrect because knowing that lipo raises cholesterol levels would not allow us to conclude there's no reason to diet for heart disease reduction. We know that a diet lowers those levels, so it still could be useful to diet even if it can't completely overcome what lipo does to one's cholesterol.

(B) is tricky -- there is no established link other than a "many" correlation. However, would the link help us conclude that there's no reason to diet for heart disease? Even if lipo does cause heart disease, it could be that diet, which helps lower cholesterol is worthwhile.

(D) is out of scope - poor diets?

(E) is tempting since the argument indeed does not explain that. But would that explanation help us conclude that there's no reason to diet for heart disease reasons? No -- the fact is, high cholesterol levels "have been associated with the development of heart disease."

To address your question, I think you were looking for something like this: "The argument fails to establish that lipo will cause heart disease, no matter what you to do reduce those pesky cholesterol levels." That's the danger of looking for an answer! (C) is actually playing on this issue by saying "Hey, you never said that lipo alone is the issue -- what about that cholesterol you mentioned!"

Does that make sense? Tough one!

[timmydoeslsat]

I wanted to share my thoughts on this one.

The stimulus starts out with a correlation of high cholesterol levels and the development of heart disease. Then says some people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease, and some develop heart disease without high cholesterol.

What a cut and dry correlation. No way for somebody to assume causation there because of the evidence of an absence of an effect with the presumed cause and vice versa.

The stimulus then throws in that above average levels of the blood particle LPA was found in people with heart disease caused by high cholesterol levels.

They conclude that since LPA is not affected by changes to diet,, that there's no purpose to make modifications in diet to prevent heart disease.

You should tell yourself that this is bogus reason! You have a correlation of some blood particle, that like Noah said could be high in many people, and high cholesterol levels, and since diet does not change the LPA levels, NO ONE has a reason to make diet changes to prevent heart disease.

What about those that don't have the high levels of LPA? They may be able to benefit from a diet modification that affects cholesterol levels. The argument essentially forgets about those people!

[shodges]

Can some one help me out on this one?

how does

" is not affected by diet, and lipo is found in the blood of folks with heart disease that was definitely caused by high cholesterol."

equal

"Recently, above average concentrations of the blood particle lip were found in the blood of many people whose hear disease was no attributable to other causes"

I got this one wrong because how can we know "attributable to other causes" means "attributable to heart disease."

[noah]

Can some one help me out on this one?

how does

" is not affected by diet, and lipo is found in the blood of folks with heart disease that was definitely caused by high cholesterol."

equal

"Recently, above average concentrations of the blood particle lip were found in the blood of many people whose hear disease was no attributable to other causes"

So sorry about that-I mis-typed. I fixed it above. It should read NOT caused by high cholesterol. Eek.

I got this one wrong because how can we know "attributable to other causes" means "attributable to heart disease."

Maybe this question is now moot, but we don't ever have to say for sure that heart disease is a cause, but since the two are correlated, it's possible that cholesterol --> heart disease, and thus there may be a reason to change your diet (and, from the third sentence, we know there are dietary changes that affect cholesterol).

I hope that clears it up - sorry about the typo - definitely my worst of the day!

[shirando21]

still don't feel comfortable with this question.

the argument only mentioned correlation, we should not assume causation for sure. Isn't that already a flaw?

how can the right answer be "for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease."????

somebody help me.......

[noah]

still don't feel comfortable with this question.

the argument only mentioned correlation, we should not assume causation for sure. Isn't that already a flaw?

how can the right answer be "for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease."????

somebody help me.......

Let me see if I can help. The answer actually doesn't say that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. Instead, it notes that there's evidence that it does and that the argument ignores this evidence. In other words, "hey, it very well might be--as you yourself, Mr. Argument suggested--that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease, and so, even if diet doesn't affect those lipo things, it will affect cholesterol levels--you said it can--and thus affect heart disease."

It's definitely tricky because it's all based on a could be causation. That clear it up?

[shirando21]

Ok, it is just so weird that, today I read it, it looks ok to me. it really depends on my status of the day I do it.

Hope it can get more stable and improving...

[boy5237]

Hey Noah,
just to make sure I got this question...

My problem arose once I equated the 2nd part of sentence "many people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease" with "people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease." So wrong, now I think about it...

So, one could infer from that 2nd sentence that even if many don't do so, (many is some) other most of people COULD develop heart disease due to high cholesterol right?

So... that's why dietary changes might be beneficial because they could lower the level of cholesterol?

[noah]

Hey Noah,
just to make sure I got this question...

My problem arose once I equated the 2nd part of sentence "many people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease" with "people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease." So wrong, now I think about it...

So, one could infer from that 2nd sentence that even if many don't do so, (many is some) other most of people COULD develop heart disease due to high cholesterol right?

So... that's why dietary changes might be beneficial because they could lower the level of cholesterol?

This all looks good--though perhaps you mean 2nd part of sentence instead of 2nd sentence where I underlined.

Nice work wrestling it to the ground, it's a tough one.

[shirando21]

After reviewing it again, it is like L is not much important in solving this problem.

C is correlated with HD.

Many C-->-HD
Many -C-->HD

L found in blood of C

change in C-->not change in L

but change in C may change HD, this is what C expresses.

[VincentAlessendri]

What I do not understand is why A is not the right answer to this question.

If Lipoprotein raises cholesterol levels, then people might want to change their diet and stop consuming foods that contain Lipoprotein.

It doesn't matter if cholesterol has no effect on lipoprotein levels if lipoprotein levels affect cholesterol levels.

[olumide_francis]

Hi Noah,

So you mean the point we can use to attack the flaw is "Dietary changes that affect cholesterol (C) levels....", which means "dietary changes might increase/lower the C levels". In the case it lowers the C levels, dietary change might have somehow positive impact on preventing heart disease because we only know that there is an association between heart disease and people w/o C level.

[LukeM22]

Reading this question really hurts my head.

OK, so it appear that the tangent about Lipoprotein is a gigantic distraction designed to make someone pick B, which seems to be a trap answer. If we ere to simply remove all of the sentences with Lipoprotein, then this would be a really easy question. How often do these types of questions (irrelevant, distracting premise) come up, and is there a technique that would prevent us from wasting time on the future with these?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's relatively common for LSAT to hide what they're really testing by putting filler in the middle. Lots of Inference questions involve combining the 1st and last ideas to derive our inference, while the middle sentence just wastes our time.

Since this flaw of Internal-Contradiction would be, as you said, way too easy to spot if you got rid of the distraction, it's pretty fair to say that if they're testing Internal Contradiction, then we'll probably see this maneuver.

There was an Internal Contradiction on test 81, but I don't know if there were any on the previous twenty tests (or more).

The best technique for avoiding this is to be a lawyer and argue the anti-conclusion.

GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE,
how can you argue, "There IS at least some reason for someone to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease?"

If my goal is to argue that point, then I could say, "What if there are dietary changes, that don't affect cholesterol, but DO have an effect on Lipo?"

And in regards to the first sentence, we could say, "What if there are dietary changes that lower your cholesterol? Those might help you prevent heart disease, since high cholesterol has been correlated with the development of heart disease."

[BensonC202]

Hi folks

Here is how my train goes, and I really hope that my 2 cents can contribute 2 every's success here. Please also let me know that If there is anything wrong to help me improve.


Some People with H.C do not have HD

Inference: Some people with HC do have HD

2. Some People w/o H.C do have HD

Inference: Some people without HC do not have HD

3. Some people with heart disease caused by H.C have above the average BPL

Inference: Some people with heart disease caused by H.C do not have above the average BPL.

4. D change H.C level -> No change on the level BPL


Conclusion:

Diet change serves no reason for anyone prevent heart disease.


So, does the level of BPL really correlated with people who have heart disease caused by H.C ? We don’t know, and that’s the issue. From 3 and also the inferences of 3, we know that the level of BPL seems unnecessary to be high or low for people who have heart disease caused by H.C and that, based on 1 and inference of 1, we know that some people with HC do have HD. Then based on the incident that event1( Diet Change ) does not necessary to change event2 ( Level of BPL ),which also being unnecessary to the event 3 ( Some People who have heart disease caused by high cholesterol ), the supported claim that event 1 does not change event 3, could be argued that Arthur ignores the possibility that there might be event N being necessary to Event 3 ( Some People who have heart disease caused by high cholesterol ) , and event 1 ( Diet Change ) can necessary change event N.

If we can find that event N and also the evidence that event N be necessary to Event 3. Then there “ is “ a reason that diet change for at "least someone" can prevent heart disease.


Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?


A.It fails to consider the possibility that lipoprotein(a) raises cholesterol levels.

Based on the premises, BPL is never either sufficient or necessary to cholesterol levels.

B.It provides no evidence for a link between lipoprotein(a) and heart disease.

Its a trap. Some people with heart disease caused by high cholesterol do / do not have above the average BPL. There should be no link. Hence, no evidences should be provided.

C.It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease.

From premises, we know this group of people with heart disease caused by high cholesterol, exists, and it truly ignores this evidence that this group of people might have a necessary factor, which could be necessary changed by changing the diet. Had it not ignored this evidence and possibility that a potential necessary factor exists, we have “reason” for " at least someone "from the group of people who have heart disease due to high cholesterol to change diet for preventing heart disease.

D.It fails to consider the possibility that poor diets cause some people to develop health problems other than heart disease.

Out of scope.

E.It offers no explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease.

This is not what we want, since what we want to know is if there are at least some people with heart disease caused by cholesterol. Knowing the explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease does not necessary mean that the explanation could also tell us if some people with high cholesterol level actually heart disease have anything to do with changing their diet. Hence, its not the flaw of the argument.

Thank you for reading

Tuothekhazar

[SkyeW831]

What I do not understand is why A is not the right answer to this question.

If Lipoprotein raises cholesterol levels, then people might want to change their diet and stop consuming foods that contain Lipoprotein.

It doesn't matter if cholesterol has no effect on lipoprotein levels if lipoprotein levels affect cholesterol levels.

I also thought this way.
I ultimately eliminated C because I thought "high cholesterol levels have been associated with the development of heart disease" couldn't qualify as evidence, as it is merely a statement - no actual evidence has been presented.
Could anyone please help me with these lines of thinking? Thank you.