LSAT 131 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: On the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a researcher

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: Eating the tropical fruits soursop, custard apple and pomme cannelle causes atypical Parkinson’s.

REASONING: A study found that 100% of patients with atypical Parkinson’s ate the fruits, whereas only 10% of healthy adults did. The study examined 35 people with Parkinson’s and 65 healthy people.

ANALYSIS: This sounds like a persuasive argument. I can see two possible flaws:

The sample size is very small.

Maybe the fruits help with Parkinson’s, and that’s why the sick people ate them.

The second flaw is a correlation/causation flaw. The author is assuming fruits cause Parkinson’s, but maybe Parkinson’s causes the fruits!

___________

1. CORRECT. See the analysis above. This shows Parkinson’s may cause fruit eating, rather than the other way around.
2. There’s a difference between eating something “on occasion” and eating it regularly. Most people do unhealthy things occasionally, without great consequence.
3. The author wasn’t saying that only those fruits cause atypical Parkinson’s. They’re just saying the fruits were a cause.
4. This just makes the situation confusing. If the fruits cause Parkinson’s, then why are these adults immune despite eating massive quantities?
5. This explains why people might eat the fruits, but it doesn’t tell us whether or not the fruit causes Parkinson’s.