Q8 - Merton: A study showed that people

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
M: Living by a busy road is correlated with heart disease. Therefore, air pollution causes heart disease.

O: Couldn't it be something else?

Answer Anticipation:
M commits a classic Correlation/Causation flaw. O asks the question that you should always be asking yourself when an argument commits that flaw - could anything else actually be the cause?

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) O doesn't question whether the correlation exists (which was the result of the study), but rather whether there is another factor at play.

(B) Tempting! So close, but this answer states that M needs to consider other effects OF air pollution, not other causes instead of air pollution.

(C) O asks whether M is missing something, not whether M is misunderstanding something.

(D) This answer would be correct if O mentioned a busy street with exceptionally healthy residents, which would be a counterexample. Questioning if there are other causes isn't a counterexample.

(E) Ca-ching. O is all about alternative explanations. Asking about them suggests they need to be ruled out before M's conclusion can be validly reached.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Studying the classic flaws and being able to spot them quickly is key to a large number of LSAT questions. We've got you covered with flashcards in your Student Center.

#officialexplanation

[KenM242]

I was so sure that (E) was a trap, because (I thought) what Ortiz is doing is suggesting that alternative explanations for the study's findings need to be EXAMINED (or factored in, or however you word it) not RULED OUT.

I feel so helpless because just when I think I have discovered a sneaky trap, it's actually not and I end up screwing myself over by thinking carefully.

Please tell me where I went wrong with my thought process mentioned in the first sentence.


And thanks mschinners. Your explanations are always very easy to follow.