Q2 - Sleep research has demonstrated

[rdown2b]

I picked E which is the correct answer but I was really contemplating between A and E? Can someone explain this to me. The only reason I went with E is because I thought A uses alot of the same words in the stimulus so I assumed that the Testers were trying trick people.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

So, the argument is that because subjects deprived of REM sleep become irritable, REM sleep, which is the only time we dream, must reduce stress. We're trying to strengthen this argument.

(E) is correct because it more firmly establishes the connection between REM sleep and stress levels.

(A) is incorrect because it sort of weakens the argument. If people who are deprived of non-REM sleep also become more irritable, then it must be sleep, rather than REM sleep specifically, that reduces stress.

(B) would also weaken the argument, if anything, by suggesting that REM sleep causes stress.

(C) weakens the argument by reversing the causal relationship: higher stress causes people to have less REM sleep, not vice versa.

(D) is out because whether people can report their dreams is totally out of scope.

Hope that helps!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

I don't know why but this question gave a bit of trouble when I wrote this PT.

Premise (Phenomenon): People deprived of REM sleep become irritable when they're awake.
Conclusion (Hypothesis): REM relives stress when people are awake.

This is a cause and effect argument, to strengthen we need to chose an answer choice that negates the possibility of a competing hypothesis, or one that make it more likely that the hypothesis caused the observed hypothesis.
Gap: Stress causes irritability.

(A) This weakens the argument by it less likely that it is the deprivation of REM sleep causes irritability.
(B) This appears to weakens the argument by suggesting that REM can cause stress, definitely doesn't strengthen.
(C) This weakens the argument by suggesting that the perceived phenomenon (stress/irritability during waking life) is actually the cause of the perceived hypothesis ( the deprival of non-REM sleep).
(D) We don't care about the dreams they were having, irrelevant/
(E) Bingo. This strengthens the argument by suggesting that those who are deprived of REM sleep experience more stress and therefore irritability.

[KarenL]

Isn't choice (C) kind of the contrapositive of the conclusion??

C: stress ---> ~REM
The conclusion is: REM --> ~stress?

Thanks!

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

This may sound stupid, but I also chose C, thinking the Contrapositive could strengthen the argument.
Answer choice C: Stress -> Less REM sleep, which is the reverse relationship, therefore incorrect for correlation-causation problems.
But at the same I thought it was the Contrapositive of the conclusion, therefore could be a strengthener.

My diagram of the stimulus is:
Less REM sleep -> Stress (Correlation)
REM sleep -> Less Stress (Causation)

The conclusion seems like Causation + Mistaken Negation to me.

I don't know where I'm getting messed up.

[ohthatpatrick]

Causality and Conditional logic don't have much overlap on LSAT, and it's probably dangerous to try to take it in that direction.

Conditional logic is about black and white relationships.
Causality usually deals with correlations / trends, which can have exceptions.

And the most common way to strengthen a causal argument is the "Control Group" answer (things not exposed to cause did not experience effect).

If you were thinking conditionally, that would mess you up, because you'd be thinking
~Cause --> ~Effect
was some illegal negation

You could represent (C) conditionally, but you need more detail to keep yourself from getting confused.

The contrapositive of (C) says
"If my REM sleep is not currently prevented from dreaming, then I am not currently in a time of increased stress".

You would probably find analyzing (C) easier if you're using your Causal brain.

In the conclusion, is REM sleep causing something or being affected by something?

It's causing stress relief. Meanwhile, in (C), is REM sleep causing something or being affected by something?

It's being affected by increased stress.

Thus, (C) doesn't reinforce the author's causal interpretation that REM sleep affects stress. It offers a different interpretation: stress affects REM sleep.

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

Hello ohthatpatrick!
Thank you very much for your quick reply!

I've read your reply and looked at the problem again, and I still have questions.

First, can I call this a correlation causation problem?
Premise: Test subjects chronically deprived of REM sleep become irritable. (Correlation)
Conclusion: REM sleep relieves stress. (Causation)

Second, instead of the real Conclusion in the stimulus, for this kind of question, I think I see more something like "Being chronically deprived of REM sleep causes stress" as the conclusion. Then, something like "Stress does not chronically deprive people of REM sleep" can be a strengthener.

Third, for this particular problem, my brain thinks the author already assumes "Being chronically deprived of REM sleep causes stress." It's not just a correlation but a causation. Then the author concludes "REM sleep relieves stress." I hope this is correct.

Fourth, I personally don't like the jump from the Premise to the Conclusion the author made. How can I weaken the Conclusion?

Fifth, for causation strengthen problems, one correct answer choice No Cause No Effect should not be read as a Mistaken negation.

Lastly, are these correct?
If A, then B = A->B
A is B = A->B
A caused B = A->B
A likes B = No diagram?
Premise Conclusion = No diagram?

I have so many questions, because I couldn't clearly see the problem.
I'd appreciate it if you could help me with these questions.
Thank you Patrick and ManhattanPrep Staff!

[ohthatpatrick]

For some reason your response was "Waiting for approval" (not sure why some of them get held up that why).

First, can I call this a correlation causation problem?
Yeah, basically. The 2nd to last sentence sounds vaguely causal "deprived of REM sleep they become irritable". So it's probably not fair to say that the evidence is a correlation. But you're still playing off the classic template of ....

PREMISE = curious fact
CONCLUSION = author's explanation for / interpretation of that fact

We always deal with these with the same two pressure points:
1. How ELSE could we explain the curious fact?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the author's explanation?


Second, instead of the real Conclusion in the stimulus, for this kind of question, I think I see more something like "Being chronically deprived of REM sleep causes stress" as the conclusion.
I think you're reacting to the implicit causality assumed to reach the author's actual conclusion. We can tell the author is thinking, "stresses lead to irritability", and "no REM leads to irritability", so "no REM --> stress --> irritability"

or
"getting REM --> less stress --> less irritability"


Third, for this particular problem, my brain thinks the author already assumes "Being chronically deprived of REM sleep causes stress." It's not just a correlation but a causation.
Yes the author is assuming that connection. The author is also assuming that stress can cause irritability.


Fourth, I personally don't like the jump from the Premise to the Conclusion the author made. How can I weaken the Conclusion?

1. Some OTHER way to explain the curious fact ("why ELSE could it be that people deprived of REM are irritable?" Maybe being deprived of REM makes you chronically hungry and being chronically hungry makes you irritable.)
or
2. Make the author's story seem less PLAUSIBLE (introduce evidence that make it seem like REM sleep and stress do NOT go hand in hand ... or make it seem like REM sleep couldn't have any effect on stress, for some reason)


Fifth, for causation strengthen problems, one correct answer choice No Cause No Effect should not be read as a Mistaken negation.

True that. In fact, it's the most common form of correct answer when you're strengthening causal arguments.

Lastly, are these correct?
If A, then B = A->B
yes.

A is B = A->B
yes.

A caused B = A->B
no. it's not a conditional statement. it's just a causal fact. we sometimes draw arrows when we're showing ourselves "the flow" of causality, but we don't actually mean conditional logic.


A likes B = No diagram?
I have no idea what you're saying here. "Pam likes carrots"? If you're Pam, then you like carrots?

Premise Conclusion = No diagram?
no idea what you're saying here.

In our books/slides, we tend to illustrate the move from Premise to Conclusion with an arrow, but you should think of that big arrow as a QUESTION.
PREMISE ---?---> CONCLUSION

As in, "IF I accept the premises, do I also have to accept the conclusion?"

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

Thank you very much ohthatpatrick for your detailed explanations!!

After reading your explanation, I think it's easier to approach this particular problem in the following form:
Premise: Phenomenon/Fact
Conclusion: Author's Explanation/Interpretation.

I think I had problems with many Strengthen questions, because I tried to use conditional logic or diagramming for them.

I also appreciate your answers to diagramming questions.

For clarification,
-> means just the flow for Causal arguments (Cause Effect), and for the Premise to the Conclusion. (There is no conditional logic)
-> means conditional logic for statements that include Sufficient/Necessary condition indicators like If, When, Must, etc.

My last questions are very easy for you to answer.
James is a Boy: J->B?
Pam likes Carrots: P->C?
1) Can these both statements be diagrammed like above?
2) Are these conditional statements?
I just don't know if I don't have to diagram such sentences, or there may be a question when I may have to diagram for sentences that include a Be-Verb or a Verb.

Thank you very much for your help!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Don't over-abbreviate with conditional statements, or you'll just confuse yourself.

How would you read "P -> C"
and get your brain to know that it said "Pam likes Carrots"?

Even if I knew that P = Pam and C = Carrots, I would still just read it as
"If Pam, then Carrots"

If you're saying
"If pam, then Likes-Carrots", you'd need an abbreviation that conveys that.

But ... DON'T turn regular sentences into conditional rules. In RARE cases (only one I can think of offhand), we might need to turn "It is A to be B" into a conditional rule, but you'll know when it's time to make that exception.

It will sounds like an ethicist giving you a categorical rule such as
"It is wrong to turn down a favor if the person offering tells you twice that it's no problem."

If we're saying something limited like
"The building across the street is a Taco Bell", don't turn that into a RULE.

Similarly, "James is a boy" is a specific fact, not a general rule.

Yes, you COULD say "If James, then a boy", but is that even true? Do you mean that every single person named James is a boy?

The only sentences we're turning into conditional statements are ones that give us certainty, and convey some sense of
RULE
UNIVERSAL
GUARANTEE
REQUIREMENT

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

Found your explanation with examples very helpful!!!

Thank you ohthatpatrick!

[JeremyK460]

(c) talks about a disturbance of REM while the argument is about a general deprivation of REM...
these aren't necessarily the same thing

i can stay up till 3am studying and wake up at 6am for work without any disturbance of REM

instead / in other words: less sleep, less REM time

a disturbance of REM might be an entirely different experiment...like torture lol