Q26 - Sociologist: A recent study of 5,000

[jeffrey.christopher.nelson]

Last minute question! Can someone explain how A explains the paradox? I see why D is right, but going back, I can't rule out A...

It could be that I am not reading the stim correctly. This is my interpretation:

Of 65+ age group, 25% malnourished, 12% poor.
Of 65- age group, greater percentage poor than malnourished.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Your understanding of the stimulus looks accurate. Answer choice (A) helps to explain the findings in the study because it helps to show for the folks 65+ why that group has such high levels of malnutrition compared to those less than 65.

If doctors are less likely to correctly diagnose and treat malnutrition in folks over 65 years old, that would be a contributing factor to the high levels of malnutrition for older folks.

(A) provides a reason why malnutrition would higher in folks over 65.
(B) if folks over 65 need increased levels of nutrients because of their medications, that could be why they're malnourished.
(C) is fairly clear. A loss of appetite could easily lead to malnutrition.
(E) would explain the study's results because now the older folks have conditions that interfere with their digestion.


Answer choice (D) makes you think that maybe by controlling the numbers we can get to an explanation, but answer choice (D) doesn't tell us anything about why the study's results were reversed for folks older than 65 as compared to folks younger than 65. This answer choice is consistent with the stimulus, but doesn't explain why the results turned out the way they did. For example according to answer choice (D) 12% or less of the folks under 65 would be under the poverty level and then that would mean that the percentage that were malnourished was even less. But that still keeps the paradoxical findings and doesn't tell us why.

Does that answer your question?

[timsportschuetz]

I have seen these types of EXCEPT question answers a few times now...! Notice how ALL the other answer choices state a likely comparison! "More likely" and "less likely" definitely state a clear quantitative relationship between the terms. However, only answer choice (D) uses "no more likely"! What can we infer from "no more likely"? Well, virtually NOTHING! Since "no more likely" could mean ANYTHING in this relationship, how could such a term ever resolve a paradox!?!? Be on the lookout for answer choices such as these on EXCEPT PARADOX questions that state a relationship without a definite relationship indicator!

[Amontillado]

(B) if folks over 65 need increased levels of nutrients because of their medications, that could be why they're malnourished.

Hello Matt,

Could (B) also be interpreted the other way around, that "since 65+ are more likely to take med, they are actually less likely to be malnourished"? In other words, "medication" first, rather than "malnourished" before "medication".

I got the right answer D, just wondering if B can have this different interpretation.

Thank you so much : )

[disguise_sky]

Could anyone kindly tell me what we are trying to explain about the finding? Are we trying to explain why the malnourished percentage is higher than the poverished percentage in the older than 65 group? (because one would assume that it is poverty that leads to malnutrition)
Thanks for your help!

[513852276]

I used to think LSAT has mistaken the relative numbers. As this question never compare malnourished or poverty percentage directly across age groups, but the answers are assume 65 or younger has lower percentage of malnourished compared to those of ages 65 above. There could be a situation as for older ages, 12% are poor, and 2% are poor&malnourished, and 23% are not poor&malnourished (percentages all based on whole population of poor). For younger, 48% are poor and 8% are poor&malnourished and 39% are not poor&malnourished. In this case, neither answer will explain this situation. However, maybe an answer "help to explain the finding" is not required to be a sufficient explanation. "help" not only means "to some extent" help, but also means "probably/likely" to help.

[uhdang]

I used to think LSAT has mistaken the relative numbers. As this question never compare malnourished or poverty percentage directly across age groups, but the answers are assume 65 or younger has lower percentage of malnourished compared to those of ages 65 above. There could be a situation as for older ages, 12% are poor, and 2% are poor&malnourished, and 23% are not poor&malnourished (percentages all based on whole population of poor). For younger, 48% are poor and 8% are poor&malnourished and 39% are not poor&malnourished. In this case, neither answer will explain this situation. However, maybe an answer "help to explain the finding" is not required to be a sufficient explanation. "help" not only means "to some extent" help, but also means "probably/likely" to help.

I want to hear more from other people regarding this issue. I also noticed that this question never compare malnourished or poverty percentage directly across age groups, and this could possibly create scenarios where greater poverty percentage than malnourished for 65 or younger group could still mean that this group has greater malnourished percentage of people than older than 65 group. If this were to be true, this could rather make the answer choices B, C, D, and E ambiguous, because TECHNICALLY they never said the "older group" has greater percentage of malnourished people than "younger group." Although given premise does help how people over 65 would be more malnourished (B and C) or people younger than 65 would be less malnourished (E), but they are all relative WITHIN the same age group, isn't it?

Help me out here please

[maryadkins]

Welcome to the thorny world of scientific data interpretation. What a beastly place to be.

Well, I'm with you on how the groups aren't compared to each other and how this raises questions for the answer choices overall in terms of how well they actually explain the disparities given.

However, if we boil it down to something simpler:

Older people are more likely to be malnourished than poor. Young people are more likely to be poor than malnourished. Why the difference between the two groups?

...we can think of it as solely trying to explain where there is this difference between the two groups. And (D) doesn't explain it at ALL, while the other answer choices possibly explain it.

[JoP960]

Your understanding of the stimulus looks accurate. Answer choice (A) helps to explain the findings in the study because it helps to show for the folks 65+ why that group has such high levels of malnutrition compared to those less than 65.

If doctors are less likely to correctly diagnose and treat malnutrition in folks over 65 years old, that would be a contributing factor to the high levels of malnutrition for older folks.

(A) provides a reason why malnutrition would higher in folks over 65.
(B) if folks over 65 need increased levels of nutrients because of their medications, that could be why they're malnourished.
(C) is fairly clear. A loss of appetite could easily lead to malnutrition.
(E) would explain the study's results because now the older folks have conditions that interfere with their digestion.


Answer choice (D) makes you think that maybe by controlling the numbers we can get to an explanation, but answer choice (D) doesn't tell us anything about why the study's results were reversed for folks older than 65 as compared to folks younger than 65. This answer choice is consistent with the stimulus, but doesn't explain why the results turned out the way they did. For example according to answer choice (D) 12% or less of the folks under 65 would be under the poverty level and then that would mean that the percentage that were malnourished was even less. But that still keeps the paradoxical findings and doesn't tell us why.

Does that answer your question?

Your explanation of answer D is quiet helpful! Thank you very much!