Q7 - It is widely believed that

[chike_eze]

Narrowed it down to (A) and (B). I think because I saw (A) first, I worked harder than necessary to prove it better than (B). Ultimately I chose the correct answer (B) during my timed PT. But I wasted precious time comparing the two -- grrrhh!

On review, what makes (A) wrong is the use of "calls into question the accuracy of the evidence..." This is not supported by the text.

The author faults the reasoning of common wisdom (what caused what) not the fact that people report acne associated with chocolate.

Do I have it right, or is there some other reason to definitely eliminate (A) or definitely pick (B) ?

Share...

[bbirdwell]

Right!

Break the answers into small pieces and see if they match the original argument.

The counter-evidence (hormones) calls into question the conclusion (chocolate caused acne), not the evidence (chocolate and acne happened together).

For (B), additional evidence (hormones) points to new interpretation (stress causes acne/chocolate) of the evidence offered (acne and chocolate) in support of position (chocolate causes acne) being challenged (by the counter-conclusion, evidence).

[chike_eze]

Right!

Break the answers into small pieces and see if they match the original argument.

The counter-evidence (hormones) calls into question the conclusion (chocolate caused acne), not the evidence (chocolate and acne happened together).

For (B), additional evidence (hormones) points to new interpretation (stress causes acne/chocolate) of the evidence offered (acne and chocolate) in support of position (chocolate causes acne) being challenged (by the counter-conclusion, evidence).

Wheww, that had a few knots and twists, but it makes sense. LR... I'll understand you yet!

Thanks

[LSAT-Chang]

I had trouble between (B) and (E). I ultimately went with (B) but I really liked (E) as well.. what is wrong with (E)? Is it the last part about "causes do not always precede their effects"?

[chike_eze]

I had trouble between (B) and (E). I ultimately went with (B) but I really liked (E) as well.. what is wrong with (E)? Is it the last part about "causes do not always precede their effects"?

Common Wisdom: large amount of chocolate followed by acne.
> more chocolate -> acne

Author: common wisdom is mistaken because studies show that stress can lead to acne and more chocolate.
> stress -> more chocolate
> stress -> acne

For (E) to be correct, the author would have attempted to weaken "common wisdom" by stating that more chocolate does not necessarily lead to acne. Instead he gives a different cause (stress) for "more chocolate" and "acne".

Also, "causes do not always precede their effects" is too general. The author provides a specific (not general) alternative explanation based on new evidence.

One of the ways to weaken X->Y is to show Z -> X and Y. The author employs this strategy.

[zee.brad]

For this question, in general, I don't like the word "counterexample", so I eliminate anything to do with "counterexample", which are A, E.
Since counterexample means give an example that demonstrate exactly the opposite case that author claims, for example:
a claim: birds can fly
a counterexample: chicken is a bird, but chicken cannot fly.
In this case, no counterexample is really involved.
claim: chocolate --> acne
alternative explanation: stress causes both craving for chocolate and acne.
In that case, "stress" is exactly the "additional evidence" as answer choice B states.

[bbirdwell]

snappy. again, you're using what seem to be efficient techniques to match up answer choices with arguments. keep it up and note the times that you get burned so you can adjust!

[nushy786]

Why is (C) incorrect?

[ptraye]

i chose (C) from the practice book i'm using, and i'm understanding why it is incorrect and (B) is correct.

the practice book i have explains (C) as incorrect because the author is not "relying on the mere authority of science over common sense. The chocolate/acne correlation is consistent with science's view of the role of stress."

[af10]

Having a tough time interpreting AC (B).

The last part of (B) says: "...in support of the position being challenged." Isn't the position being challenged the fact that chocolate causes acne? Why would this be "in support" of that position?

I have a slight feeling i'm reading the AC incorrectly or that it can legitimately be interpreted in two ways.

The answer would make more sense to me if it said it provides a different interpretation of evidence offered "....in support of the of the challenger's position."