Q19 - Chronic insomniacs participated in a

[sissixz]

Why A is not right?

I thought it may be a good explanation too, although I find out D's merits.

Can somebody help me?

Million thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It's so annoying when the answer to the question is in the question stem itself.

Take a look at what it's asking for. It asks for the answer choice that most explains "all of the data."

Answer choice (A) would explain the second statistic that 90% of those who reported relief claimed that the insomnia had returned. But it would not support the first statistic that 80% of both groups saw relief from symptoms of insomnia.

Answer choice (D) would explain both statistics, and so is the correct answer.

(A) is incorrect for the reason above.
(B) would explain the first statistic, but not the second.
(C) is irrelevant. Slight variations in chemical composition could have dramatic changes on the outcome.
(E) wouldn't explain either statistic. If this were true, why did we see such uniform improvement and then return to normal?

Does that answer your question?

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Matt.. I am still confused on this one.
I chose (A) over (D), because of the following reasons:

(A) - explains both stats since it can be inferred that for the first two weeks, 80% were seeing effects since they didn't build up tolerance yet, but after 2 weeks, they built tolerance to it, so they no longer experience its effects.

(D) - how does this even relate? the first sentence tells us that it was a "one-month" study, so if most imsoniacs were sleeping here for a month, how can this explain the fact that insomnia returned for 90% of these people during their third week? if they sleep better in a new environment, then they should be sleeping well for the whole one-month since that is how long they stayed in their new environment, but why didn't they sleep well after their second week?

[lhermary]

It's so annoying when the answer to the question is in the question stem itself.

Take a look at what it's asking for. It asks for the answer choice that most explains "all of the data."

Answer choice (A) would explain the second statistic that 90% of those who reported relief claimed that the insomnia had returned. But it would not support the first statistic that 80% of both groups saw relief from symptoms of insomnia.

Answer choice (D) would explain both statistics, and so is the correct answer.

(A) is incorrect for the reason above.
(B) would explain the first statistic, but not the second.
(C) is irrelevant. Slight variations in chemical composition could have dramatic changes on the outcome.
(E) wouldn't explain either statistic. If this were true, why did we see such uniform improvement and then return to normal?

Does that answer your question?

It was between D and B and I chose wrong

I don't get how B is wrong. I know you mentioned that it wouldn't explain the first statistic, but I feel that it does. If one believes that one is taking a helpful drug then there could be a 'placebo effect ' regardless of whether or not the drug worked. The placebo effect would tapper off after two weeks for example.

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

I think Matt meant to say it does not address the first group, those that took the new drug.

What really should be jumping out at you when you see this stimulus is that both groups had identical numbers, no matter if you took the drug or not. It seems to be very consistent with the idea that the drug is not involved in this phenomenon. Rather it is just the new place, this institute, having this effect.

Answer choice B would not help us explain the data with those taking the new drug. They did not take a placebo. Why did the effects wear off? We must explain all of the data the question stem states.

[nflamel69]

I think for this question we need to address 2 possible paradoxes. 1st, the reason why did both the new drug and placebo had good effects. 2nd, why did they both wear off after 2 weeks. (A) addresses the 2nd paradox, but it didnt address why did placebo work as well as the drug in the first paradox. someone above said placebo effect, but that's an extra assumption we have to make to justify our answer, which generally is to be avoided. (D) address both paradoxes, by saying the benefits are actually caused by a 3rd factor, it makes sense in both cases why the effects are similar to each other, those who took placebo and those who took the new drug

[xinglipku]

I think for this question we need to address 2 possible paradoxes. 1st, the reason why did both the new drug and placebo had good effects. 2nd, why did they both wear off after 2 weeks. (A) addresses the 2nd paradox, but it didnt address why did placebo work as well as the drug in the first paradox. someone above said placebo effect, but that's an extra assumption we have to make to justify our answer, which generally is to be avoided. (D) address both paradoxes, by saying the benefits are actually caused by a 3rd factor, it makes sense in both cases why the effects are similar to each other, those who took placebo and those who took the new drug

But isn't it the case that (D) doesn't address the effect (or no effect) of placebo, therefore it doesn't explain why those who were given placebo and reported relief later returned to insomnia?

[timmydoeslsat]

The very fact that patients were given a placebo means that they were given something that will not have an effect.

A placebo is something used that does not give an effect, so it does not have to be explained.

[x5zhao]

I think it would be helpful to identify the scenarios by delineating the situations during the first two weeks and during the third week.

During the first two weeks: "80% in each group reported..." indicates that new drug and placebo might have same effects on the tested insomniacs.

During the third week: "in each group, approximately 90% reported..." indicates that both new drug and placebo do not continue have effects.

Then, you will need a reason to explain this contradictory situation. I found B,C,E are easy to eliminate, so I will focus on choice A and D.

Choice A only explains why new drugs don't have effects in the third week, but it does not explain the placebo group. Some people may say the placebo is effective because the tested people believe it to be, then think about why it stops to work effectively during the third week? Hope you can see that A does not really explain the paradox.

Choice D, on the other hand, explain the reasons for both new drug and placebo by ruling out the "effectiveness" variable.

Hope this helps!

[josh.randall52]

I guess I understand why the placebo effect cannot be explained by the 2 weeks good and 1 week dropoff, so the tolerance of this drug has no relevance... but how does AC D explain that they returned to their insomniac ways? I guess the answer will be, because, well, they're insomniacs. But, if they sleep better in a new environment, why the sudden drop off? I guess I somewhat answered my question, just having it hard to see how it resolves them going back to their old ways from the AC, "Most insomniacs sleep better in a new environment (ok, this explains why the results are the same across the board), and the new drug has no effect on an insomniac's ability to sleep"

Fuck, I guess it just says it's natural for them to return to their insomniac ways. AC A just popped out at me as being the obvious answer.

[rhkwk1441]

Here's my two cents.

(D) says that the new drug has no effect and that most insomniacs sleep better in a new environment. So whether one took the drug or not, they are now under the same (outside) influence of a new environment. This would explain why they showed similar relief in insomnia. With regards to its effect wearing off after two weeks, I think there is an implicit assumption that the effect of a new environment is wearing off as they stay longer. I my self was not comfortable with this answer choice at all but the other answer choices are worse in my opinion.

(A) doesn't explain why both groups had similar effects nor why those people under placebo experienced insomnia after 2 weeks. We need to make a lot of assumptions for this one to work (at least more than the answer choice D). Namely, we need to assume that placebo is more or less as effective as the drug and that placebo effect diminishes after two weeks.

(B), most importantly, doesn't explain why they both wear off after two weeks. There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of drugs. According to (B), both groups are under psychological comfort that relieves insomnia. Great but what about the effect of drugs? If drug is effective, wouldn't drug group experience greater relief in insomnia since they are having both psychological comfort and effect of the drug? Again, for this to work, we need to make many assumptions.

I chose (B) thinking "well, if both groups are getting psychological comfort, it can explain the similar effects assuming that the drug is not really effective. It's also not unusual that those psychological effect wears off after some time.. umm... clock is ticking.. umm... oh what the hell it sounds pretty close move on." During the review this sounds absolutely ridiculous but you guys know how things get messed up with the clock ticking.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

(A) Explains why the group that took the new drugs experienced a relief in insomnia but then experienced a return thereafter, however, the group took the placebo experienced a similar relief in insomnia and then a return to the latter.

[TomC27]

I thought A) was correct but I changed my mind to D) because the passage states that,

"Approximately 80% of the participants in each group reported a significant relief."

This means that the drug did not really have an effect. If it did, they would claim something like "80% the group that was given a new dose of drug reported a significant relief while 30% did in the placebo group." So, there must be something else that is causing the relief.

The question asks us to explain all the data from the study. So:

A) Cannot explain everything
B) This could be true, but it cannot explain why the insomnia had returned later. If this was true, then the insomnia shouldn't return.
C) Irrelevant
D) This makes the most amount of sense. This tells us that 1) the drug has no effect and 2) there may be another cause (as in this case, sleeping better in a new environment).
E) Irrelevant