Q24 - In a recent study of arthritis

[didi0504]

it is about the study on arthritis...

answer B and C seem equally right to me. can you explain why B is wrong and why C is right?

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question!

Here's what we know:

- The study did not find a correlation between weather and increased pain intensity.

- Those who believed in such a connection reported widely varying intervals between their pain and the supposed meteorological cause.

Now, what can we support, given that information?

(A) is out because the study did not find any correlation between weather and pain intensity. So it doesn't support any assertion about weather actually affecting arthritis sufferers.

(B) is incorrect because we have no information about the arthritis sufferers' assessment of the intensity of their pain. All the stimulus talks about is the variability in the interval between weather and pain; nowhere does it mention how great that pain is perceived to be.

(D) is incorrect because, again, the study didn't find any connection between weather and increased pain.

(E) is incorrect because, for one thing, we just read about a scientific investigation into this topic, with no indication that it turned out to be impossible.

Okay, so that leaves (C): suggests that the arthritis sufferers are imagining the correlation they assert to exist.

Well, this sounds a little harsh, but it makes sense. We know the study did not find any correlation. Nevertheless, certain subjects are convinced it exists. However, they give widely diverging accounts of the time lag between the weather event and the increased pain. If the correlation actually existed, we'd expect the increased pain to occur with some regular connection to the weather events. If it didn't exist, we'd expect the interval between weather and pain to be random, which is apparently what the study found.

Does that clear this one up for you? Tough question.

[richtailkim]

Let me ask a follow-up question.

In the stimulus it also says: "Those arthritis sufferers in the study who were convinced of the existence of such a correlation gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between the occurrence of what they believed to be the relevant feature of the weather and the increased intensity of the pain."

You said that (B) is wrong because "we have no information about the arthritis sufferers' assessment of the intensity of their pain."

But the stimulus does seem to be talking about the perception of the arthritis sufferers regarding the intensity of the pain in the part that I bolded above. For there it suggests that when the arthritis sufferers believed that some relevant feature of the weather came into existence, the intensity of the pain increased, which is what is stated by (B).

Please straighten me out!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the follow-up!

(B) says that the study "indicates that arthritis sufferers' beliefs about the causes of the pain they feel may affect their assessment of the intensity of that pain."

What that means is, depending on what you believe is causing your pain, your assessment of the intensity of your pain -- in other words, how much pain you think you're feeling -- will change. For example, if you think the weather causes it, you tend to feel more pain, and if you think fluoride in tap water causes it, you tend to feel less pain, etc., etc.

But the stimulus doesn't talk at all about the relationship between the putative cause of the pain and the degree of the pain; it only addresses the relationship between the cause and the timing of the pain.

The reason I said that "we have no information about the arthritis sufferers' assessment of the intensity of their pain" is that all we know is that their pain "increased" -- we don't know by how much, or whether there was variation, or anything else that would fall under "assessment of the intensity."

We straight?

[richtailkim]

I'm still unable to see why (B) is wrong.

You said that:

"But the stimulus doesn't talk at all about the relationship between the putative cause of the pain and the degree of the pain; it only addresses the relationship between the cause and the timing of the pain."

But the stimulus does seem to be talking about the relationship between the putative cause of the pain and the degree of the pain, namely, that the degree of the pain increased.

You also said that:

"The reason I said that "we have no information about the arthritis sufferers' assessment of the intensity of their pain" is that all we know is that their pain "increased" -- we don't know by how much, or whether there was variation, or anything else that would fall under "assessment of the intensity."

It is true that we aren't given information about the magnitude of the increase of pain, but why is that required for there to be an assessment of the intensity of the pain?

Imagine a factory productivity evaluator that goes to different factories to assess the productivity of each factory. One of the things that the evaluator may write on his notes for the evaluation of some particular factory, say X, could be "the productivity of this factory has increased during the past 3 months." But surely this statement, by itself, is an assessment of the productivity of that factory. It doesn't seem to me like some exact measurement given in some quantifiable units is necessary.

But perhaps: (a) I'm wrong about this example, or (b) there is a disanalogy here between my example and the stimulus.

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm just going to address answer choice (B) from my perspective rather than bringing in giladedelman's views on this one.

I think you might be misreading answer choice (B). Sure, we know that the study suggests that the arthritis sufferers believe that the causes of the pain they feel affect the intensity of that pain. But that's not what answer choice (B) is saying!

Answer choice (B) is saying that it's the beliefs about the causes of pain that affects the intensity of that pain. Where do we see any support for the idea that "beliefs" can affect the intensity of pain felt by these arthritis sufferers.

It's one thing to say that the arthritis sufferers believe the pain is caused by the weather, and it's another thing altogether to say that the beliefs themselves affect the intensity of pain.

Does that help clear up why answer choice (B) is not supported by the stimulus?

[richtailkim]

Thank you for you response!

I do see your point, but I didn't want give you the line of reasoning that was in my mind for this question and see why it was faulty.

I was thinking the following:

(1) Researchers found no actual correlation between pain intensity and the cited features of weather.
(2) The arthritis sufferers were convinced of the existence of such a correlation.
(3) The arthritis sufferers also gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between between the occurrence of what they believed to be the relevant feature of the weather and the increased intensity of the pain.

Given (1)-(3) it seems likely that although there is no actual correlation between the features of the weather, and the increased intensity of the pain, there is, however, reason to believe that the arthritis' sufferers subjective assessment of the intensity of the pain is affected not by the actual features of the weather, but by their beliefs that those features of the weather have come into existence.

But maybe I'm projecting too much here? Does that line of reasoning seem far-fetched to you?

Thanks again!

- Richard

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Unfortunately, I think you're projecting in this case... and committing the flaw of mistaking correlation for causation.

We know that the arthritis sufferers have a belief about what causes their pain, and we know that the arthritis sufferers are experiencing pain, but that doesn't mean that the beliefs are causing the pain. To say that

there is, however, reason to believe that the arthritis' sufferers subjective assessment of the intensity of the pain is affected not by the actual features of the weather, but by their beliefs that those features of the weather have come into existence.

would imply causation - which unfortunately, cannot be established.

Thanks for posting your question! And let me know if you think I've misunderstood your line of reasoning somehow.

[richtailkim]

I see what you're saying, and I did realize that I did infer a causal connection. But I thought that there was inductive support for that inference, given what had occurred. I suppose I found this to be a natural inference, which is what I thought the question was asking for, but you are definitely right that there is no logical implication for the existence of a causal connection.

Thanks for your response!

[hwsitgoing]

Hi,

I've been reading over this thread. And I just want to make sure I've grasped what you were saying. Would this explanation be correct?

The stimulus simply states that arthritis sufferers believe a correlation exists between when certain types of weather appears and when they experience a change in the intensity of their arthritis pain. B incorrectly implies causation between the beliefs of arthritis sufferers about the weather and their pain, when the stimulus only talks about a correlation.

This is super tricky! Every easy to incorrectly assume causation for the stimulus..

Thanks for your help : )

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Maybe another good way to put it is that the stimulus suggests that the arthritis sufferers believe that the weather affects the pain they feel, but answer choice (B) says that it is the beliefs of the arthritis sufferers that affect the pain they feel. It's an interesting reshuffle of the statement that completely changes the meaning.

Does that make sense?

[haze021]

Can someone please clarify the previous posts for me?

So, answer choice (B) isn't implying causation when it states "can affect." Mshermn was just saying that richtailkim was committing a correlation to causation flaw in his own interpretation of (B)?

Also, is giladedelman saying (B) would have been right if it addressed time intervals, instead of intensity?

On the other hand, mshermn seems to be saying that there's no support that these arthritis sufferers' beliefs can affect anything--including the time intervals--but I wasn't sure.

Can you eliminate (B) for BOTH of these reasons? THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So, answer choice (B) isn't implying causation when it states "can affect." Mshermn was just saying that richtailkim was committing a correlation to causation flaw in his own interpretation of (B)?

Answer choice (B) is implying causation when it says "affect their assessment." This issue is that the stimulus implies that the arthritis sufferers' believe that the weather affects the intensity of their pain. This answer choice says that it's the beliefs that affect the intensity of their pain.

Also, is giladedelman saying (B) would have been right if it addressed time intervals, instead of intensity?

No answer choice (B) would not have been correct if it had addressed time intervals. The stimulus clearly is looking for a correlation between pain intensity and weather - even though it fails to find one.

Does that answer your questions haze021?

[jdrdek]

[quote="giladedelman"]Thanks for the follow-up!

(B) says that the study "indicates that arthritis sufferers' beliefs about the causes of the pain they feel may affect their assessment of the intensity of that pain."

What that means is, depending on what you believe is causing your pain, your assessment of the intensity of your pain -- in other words, how much pain you think you're feeling -- will change. For example, if you think the weather causes it, you tend to feel more pain, and if you think fluoride in tap water causes it, you tend to feel less pain, etc., etc.

But the stimulus doesn't talk at all about the relationship between the putative cause of the pain and the degree of the pain; it only addresses the relationship between the cause and the timing of the pain.


I'm afraid I don't follow the response above. The premise explicitly says that sufferers usually cited features of weather "as the cause of their INCREASED pain." This is definiitely discussing a relationship between the cause and the degree.

Please help!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument puts forward the possibility of a correlation between A (features of the weather) and B (increased pain). Given this correlation, (B) mistakenly puts forward a causal conclusion wherein A causes B. However, there is no evidence to support that A causes B. What the evidence does provide is information that undermines the possibility of a correlation existing. Thus, a conclusion against that correlation would follow, (C).

Hey Joseph, lets take another look at this one! Does answer choice (B) really say that the features of the weather cause the increased pain? I'd say instead that answer choice (B) suggests that the study indicates that it is the beliefs of the arthritis sufferers that cause the increased pain. The difference is quite subtle, but important. The study did indicate that the beliefs of the arthritis sufferers about what caused their pain was unsupported since their was a disparity in the correlation of the suspected weather pattern and the onset of the pain - best represented in answer choice (C).

We do want to be careful though that we don't interpret answer choice (B) into something familiar just to make it easier to understand. What do you think? Did I misunderstand your point?

[joseph.m.kirby]

Arg, I didn't misinterpret (B) or the stimulus, I did however, write an answer that wasn't as clear as it could be.

The stimulus notes that arthritis sufferers usually cite "weather" as the "cause" of their "increased pain," hence the arthritis sufferers believe that weather is the cause.

(B) puts forward that [this study] indicates that arthritis sufferers' beliefs about the causes of their pain (i.e. a belief about weather being the cause) may affect their assessment of the intensity of that pain.

I did my explanation rather quick, and I wrote "weather" instead of writing out "beliefs about the weather." Would my explanation follow with that adjustment?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I did my explanation rather quick, and I wrote "weather" instead of writing out "beliefs about the weather." Would my explanation follow with that adjustment?

Perfect!

[mikuo0628]

Could you please help me understand the stimulus:

"Those arthritis sufferers in the study who were convinced of the existence of such a correlation gave widely varying accounts of the time delay between the occurrence of what they believed to be the relevant feature of the weather and th e increased intensity of the pain."

Are the stated discrepancies within the individual sufferer or between these sufferers?

What are the keywords that could help me determine if it is individual sufferer giving varying accounts in terms of time delay and pain intensity to the weather feature that he or she believes to be relevant?

or

Is it different sufferers giving different accounts to the same weather feature?

Read the stimulus a few times but I can't quite put my finger on which.

Thanks in advance.

[gaheexlee]

This is how I eliminated B over C (after much, much thought).

Think of the stimulus as laying out the structure of a scientific investigation:

1st sentence - the scientific question: is there a relationship between pain intensity and weather?

2nd sentence - the experiment and results: although each studied individual believed in the same thing (that weather affects pain intensity), they gave different accounts of the time delay. In other words, no solid correlation could be found.

3rd sentence - what is the conclusion we can draw?

The 3rd sentence, which we as test takers are to fill in, simply needs to answer the question posed in the 1st sentence which explained the purpose of the entire stimulus: to determine if there is a relationship between pain intensity and weather.

B) Doesn't directly mention the two factors involved in the 'scientific question' - namely, pain and weather. Instead, the focus is on the 'beliefs'

C) Does. 'The correlation' refers to the relationship between pain and weather.

The 'scientific question' posed in the 1st sentence doesn't seek to test anything about the sufferers' beliefs. It seeks to test a relationship between pain and weather. If the stimulus had said instead "researchers tried... to find any correlation between perceived pain intensity and ...weather" then B probably would have been the winner. But in the original stimulus, we are examining the relationship between 2 objective facts - pain intensity, and weather.

In short, if you remember what the purpose of the stimulus was in the first place, C is the obvious answer.

[uhdang]

When I was understanding this stimulus, I understood that the 1st sentence already tells us that they have TRIED and FAILED to find out the correlation between pain intensity and the weather (which doesn't mean that they have concluded there isn't correlation nor is correlation between them - Failing to find the correlation doesn't mean there does NOT exist correlation).

Combining with what's been said in the second sentence, I believe the conclusion of this stimulus is WHAT they have found out in the process of this research.

1st sentence - the scientific question: is there a relationship between pain intensity and weather?

So, first of all, I don't think the first sentence is discussing whether there is a relationship between pain intensity and weather as you said above.

In short, if you remember what the purpose of the stimulus was in the first place, C is the obvious answer.

Consequently, I don't think it's the right approach to look for the answer as you suggested, for the purpose of the stimulus is not whether to find out if there is a relationship between pain intensity and weather, but to present as a conclusion what this study has found out regarding those arthritis sufferers who are convinced of the existence of the correlation IN THE PROCESS of researching the correlation.

When the focus is on here, it's easier to make sense of C), for they are dealing with what the research has found out about those arthritis sufferers' prejudice, or rather misconception regarding the correlation.