LR Question 9 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: A recent study of several hundred female physicians showed…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
PREVIEW: GAP: The argument's guilty of a correlation-causation....Get the Complete Solution
Most LSATHacks explanations are free. This particular explanation is licensed to LSATHacks by a third party, so we can only show it to members. Join LSATHacks Pro to unlock this explanation and 700+ others.
Unlock This Explanation
Already a member?
Login
Recap: The question begins with “A recent study of several hundred female physicians showed”. It is a Weaken question. Learn how to master LSAT Weaken questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
I chose answer choice D and am confused by this explanation for why it is incorrect “We have no reason to believe that whether these women had been screened in advance would have had any effect on the study’s results.” I feel that the fact the women have not been screened, which would reveal if their prior health conditions have an impact on the levels reported in the study. That would skew the results, no?
You’re right that not screening the women could have some effect on the results. But there’s a few important things to keep in mind.
Suppose they didn’t screen the participants, and later we learn that some women already had heart disease, or that some had such strong genetic risk that vitamins probably wouldn’t help them. That might seem like it weakens the conclusion.
But it actually doesn’t impact it very much. The key point is that the data still shows an inverse relationship between vitamin intake and heart disease. You’re also right that this relationship might not apply to women who already had the disease or were extremely predisposed to it. But the researchers don’t need the relationship to apply to everyone. The stimulus already tells us that (1) there’s an inverse relationship across the group and (2) it’s strong enough for the researchers to conclude that the vitamins help prevent heart disease. So even if we assume some participants had preexisting conditions, the relationship still stands.
This kind of screening issue would matter more if the researchers had concluded that the vitamins CAUSE heart disease. In that scenario, preexisting illness could be the real cause instead of the vitamins. But here the claim is that the vitamins PREVENT heart disease. To weaken that claim, we need to show a different explanation for the prevention. That’s what A does: it suggests that other nutrients in the same foods (not the vitamins themselves) might be the real reason for the lower rates of heart disease.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions.