LSAT 105 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 12

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:42

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT105 S2 Q12
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
161
B
3%
154
C
5%
156
D
84%
166
E
8%
159
136
147
157
 +Medium 145.978 +SubsectionMedium

It is probably not true that colic in infants is caused by the inability of those infants to tolerate certain antibodies found in cow’s milk, since it is often the case that symptoms of colic are shown by infants that are fed breast milk exclusively.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that colic in infants is probably not caused by certain antibodies found in cow’s milk. Why not? Because lots of infants who only drink breast milk, and so are never exposed to cow’s milk, also get colic.

Notable Assumptions
The author is assuming that infants who drink only breast milk are not exposed to the same antibodies which are found in cow’s milk. The author is also assuming that if colic were caused by the antibodies in question, it couldn’t also be separately caused by another factor.

A
A study involving 500 sets of twins has found that if one infant has colic, its twin will probably also have colic.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not there’s a genetic factor to colic is irrelevant to whether the antibodies in cow’s milk can cause colic. Plus, this doesn’t even establish a genetic factor without more context about colic rates outside of twins.
B
Symptoms of colic generally disappear as infants grow older, whether the infants have been fed breast milk exclusively or have been fed infant formula containing cow’s milk.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not colic goes away as children grow up has no bearing on what the initial cause of colic could be. This has nothing to do with any possible link between colic and cow’s milk antibodies.
C
In a study of 5,000 infants who were fed only infant formula containing cow’s milk, over 4,000 of the infants never displayed any symptoms of colic.
This does not weaken the argument. Undermining the link between cow’s milk and colic would strengthen, not weaken. We also don’t know the overall likelihood of an infant getting colic, and without context these numbers don’t actually mean much either way.
D
When mothers of infants that are fed only breast milk eliminate cow’s milk and all products made from cow’s milk from their own diets, any colic symptoms that their infants have manifested quickly disappear.
This weakens the argument. Now we have a link between cow’s milk and colic, even in infants who only drink breast milk. This undermines the support provided to the author’s conclusion that cow’s milk antibodies probably do not cause colic.
E
Infants that are fed breast milk develop mature digestive systems at an earlier age than do those that are fed infant formulas, and infants with mature digestive systems are better able to tolerate certain proteins and antibodies found in cow’s milk.
This does not weaken the argument. It doesn’t matter if the infants who are only fed breast milk can tolerate cow’s milk or not: they’re not drinking cow’s milk, but they’re still getting colic. This doesn’t interfere with the link between the author’s evidence and hypothesis.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply