LR Question 24 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: In a recent study of arthritis, researchers tried but…
QUESTION TYPE: Complete The Argument
CONCLUSION: The conclusion will probably be that the weather doesn’t affect arthritis pain.
REASONING: Arthritis sufferers who thought the weather affected their pain gave completely different start times for their pain during the same weather conditions. There was no correlation between weather and pain.
ANALYSIS: The study is leading toward a conclusion. The researchers failed to find any correlation between pain and weather. And when people said weather caused pain, they all gave different start times for their pain.
In short, the study found no evidence that weather causes pain, and plenty of evidence that weather does not cause pain. The conclusion will likely be that the correlation doesn’t exist.
___________
- The researchers found no correlation between weather and pain. So it’s unlikely the study would conclude that weather actually was the cause.
- This might be true, in a narrow technical sense. Arthritis sufferers think that weather affects the intensity of their pain.
But it’s not the conclusion of the argument. The entire argument is leading towards the idea that arthritis sufferers are imagining the correlation between weather and pain. All the evidence showed the arthritis sufferer’s were making things up.
You’re looking for the conclusion, not something that is true! - CORRECT. The researchers found no correlation. And there wasn’t any consistency in how long it took for weather to “cause” pain.
- The entire argument is leading towards the conclusion that there is no such thing as weather-caused arthritis pain.
- What an odd answer. The study has investigated the correlation, and found none. Scientific investigation is clearly possible. Sometimes the result of scientific investigation is to disprove ideas.
Recap: The question begins with “In a recent study of arthritis, researchers tried”. It is a Complete the Argument question. To practice more Complete the Argument questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Complete the Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Complete the Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers complete the argument questions.
One thing that drew me to B is that, while it may be true that across the sampled population, there was no correlation, the stimulus leaves open the possibility (even suggests, based on the last sentence) that there was a correlation for *each* participant.
For example if there were five people in the study, and they each cited a different weather feature as correlating with their arthritis, then across the sample there would be no correlation. But for each person there would be. That’s how I interpreted the last sentence of the stimulus.
So I understood B as saying that their beliefs (i.e. which weather factor correlated with their arthritis) impacted their assessment of the pain. I mean, isn’t that literally what the stimulus says? That the people surveyed gave accounts of the lag between a given weather feature and pain. So if person A says it rained yesterday, and therefore today they have pain, isn’t that their belief about the role of weather impacting their assessment?
I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding about how correlation works statistically. If there were a genuine, measurable correlation for each participant – assuming proper controls and measures – that would typically show up at the group level when testing the same variables across participants. So no, the stimulus isn’t suggesting that patients were correct. It’s pointing the other way, which is why C is the right answer.
The stimulus highlights the widely varying accounts of the time delay between the weather event and the pain increase. That inconsistency undermines the idea of a real, even personal, causal correlation and instead suggests more of a placebo effect or imagined relationship (which is what C gets at).
As for the last part of your comment, that relates to what Graeme wrote in his explanation. B might well be true, but we’re not simply looking for what’s true. This question is testing your ability to identify and infer what most directly follows from the rest of the argument. The correct answer is the one that best captures where the reasoning is leading, not just a statement that sounds plausible. And as Graeme writes: “The entire argument is leading towards the idea that arthritis sufferers are imagining the correlation between weather and pain.”
I hope that helps! Let me know if you have other questions.
The correct answer says that the arthritis sufferers are apparently “imagining” a correlation. Doesn’t this go cause problems regarding medical/scientific ethics? Wouldn’t it be out of line for the researchers of the study to question and possibly undermine the pain that these individuals claim to be experiencing? Just wondering.
The study isn’t questioning the pain they feel. It only suggests the correlation with weather is false. Arthritis sufferers make two claims:
1. I have a lot of pain
2. It happens with certain weather
The study casts doubt on #2, not #1.
Further, it is possible for people to be wrong and for sense perceptions to mislead. You have to be careful with such things, but subjective impressions aren’t automatically correct.
The weirdest LSAT question in this respect was the synestheia question, which basically did say “People with synesthesia don’t know what words mean” and went much further than this question. I thought that one wasn’t justified.
Hey guys, love your work. Just wanted to say that the Question Text part is swapped. Q24 Section 2 and Q24 Section 4 have the other’s Question Text.
Thank you! We fixed this, forgot to reply earlier.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to address it.