This one took me a minute. If you're struggling, this might help:
the stimulus says there is a correlation between snoring and throat damage then claims the snoring caused the damage/abnormalities. Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the damage was caused the snoring. Then E says damage/abnormalities didn't cause the snoring; so snoring must have caused the damage.
I think there might be a mix up here regarding Option C. Controlling for age and weight actually increases the internal validity of the study by eliminating potential confounding variables, which strengthens a causal argument rather than weakening it.
The explanation seems to be confusing internal validity with generalization (external validity). While C doesn't weaken the argument, E is still the better answer because completely ruling out reverse causality is a much more powerful logical strengthener on the LSAT than just controlling a couple of background variables.
I finally get it. E is correct because the abnormalities do not cause the snoring, and when we take that to be true then we support that the snoring will continue.
I just don't get how E strengthens... what? Are we looking to strengthen the premise, because the conclusion seems to be the very opposite of the answer! I JUST don't get it! smh
The conclusion is saying that snoring causes damage. So E it’s supporting the idea that it’s not the other way around which is strengthening the conclusion. I hope that kind of makes sense.
@KarlieS Choice E strengthens because it gets rid of another definitely possible explanation! In our causal reasoning lesson, we learned that when the premise gives us a correlation, you can have one of four explanations: 1) A causes B, 2) B causes A, 3) C causes both A & B, 4) No causal relationship.
Since the stimulus conclusion jumps to that snoring causes damage (A causes B). But what about the other 3 possible explanations of correlations? Picking answer E at least eliminates one of the possible explanations (B causes A), thus making our stimulus conclusion stronger.
@KarlieS think of it like this: any strengthens question that presents causal remanding can only be strengthened by attacking the correlation/causation pillars: b causes a vs a causing b, mere correlation, c causing a or causing b. Doing so gets rid of alt hypothesis/ the very things that dismantle causal reasoning. E represents dismantling the b causing a rather than a causing b.
@AndreCarter I (certified skeptic) instinctively criticize the stimulus arguments and think of my own alternative hypotheses or flaws when reading arguments. So how I approach the answer choices on Strengthen questions is, what covers that weakness I just came up with and eliminates it? So essentially looking for something to rule out that alternative hypothesis.
This is a great example of where 7sage could be improved with more rigorous use of causal inference in explanations. This question is a fantastic example of several key issues: A. measurement error: self report of snoring is a poor measure of snoring. Wrong answer because it weakens rather than strengthens the causal argument. B and D, collider bias: the study is conditioned on "having throat surgery". If the exposure variable (here snoring) or outcome (biopsy detectable damage) are associated with the variable conditioned on (having throat surgery), it creates a spurious correlation. Both B and D strengthen the argument by attacking that association, but they do not strengthen as much as eliminating reverse causality. C, homogeneity of test group: homogeneity is an issue for generalizability, but actually helps internal validity, because it reduces confounding (for the variables identified here as homogeneous). Because the stimulus causal claim is "snoring CAN damage the throat of the snorer", we don't need generalizability, and C also strengthens the argument, but again, not as much as eliminating the threat of reverse causality. E, reverse causality: this is the largest threat to the causal claim in a cross sectional study. Eliminating it is the choice that most strengthens the causal claim.
Was originally thinking that C was a mild strengthener because there was not a skewed distribution of age, weight, or health, meaning that both the snore and non-snore groups were similar in this way.
HOWEVER, if this were the case, then you could say that the conclusion from the biopsies does not translate to the general population as the conclusion suggests that it does. If everyone in the group were healthy college students, then a conclusion cannot be drawn about the general population, only about healthy college students.
@brydon125 C is certainly a mild strengthener, because the stimulus doesn't require the causal relationship to be generalizable. It says "snoring CAN damage the throat of the snorer", which is satisfied by a causal relationship in a specific subset. When you reduce the variability of potential confounders, you increase the likelihood that an association is actually causal. But it is much less of a strengthener than eliminating reverse causality, which is the biggest threat to a causal claim in a cross sectional (single time point) study, where you can't clearly establish that the proposed cause happened first. Since reverse causality is what E addresses, it's the right answer.
E is blocking the potential hypothesis that the stim got the cause and effect relationship backwards. That explanation would've said that it wasnt the snoring that cause the abnormalities, but the abnormalities that caused the snoring. Thus, E denies this possibility so it is the right answer. I just wish I didn't fall for C
I'm confused on this one because answer choice C to me is saying ok great, there is no issue of age weight or other health problems causing the abnormality; therefore, it must be the snoring that is causing this.
@JackClemons85 You are correct that the test subjects being of similar age, weight, and health strengthens the idea that SOMETHING is causing the throat abnormalities. However, this is no way means that snoring is that cause. It could just as easily be a different cause like smoking or certain foods. Answer choice C actually weakens the argument by showing that alternative hypotheses are possible. The stimulus says, "snoring causes damage." We can strengthen this by eliminating the alternate hypothesis "damage causes snoring" (as seen in answer choice E).
I do not know why but this video and the last one does not seem to have helped me, I hope I am wrong and with practice I'll get these answers hopefully always correct., for now I'm still a little scared of the LSAT due to timing, but I am feeling better towards it.,
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
109 comments
This one took me a minute. If you're struggling, this might help:
the stimulus says there is a correlation between snoring and throat damage then claims the snoring caused the damage/abnormalities. Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the damage was caused the snoring. Then E says damage/abnormalities didn't cause the snoring; so snoring must have caused the damage.
~ @16:26 did he mean to say equal to or less likely than non-snorers? Or did he mean to say more?
I think there might be a mix up here regarding Option C. Controlling for age and weight actually increases the internal validity of the study by eliminating potential confounding variables, which strengthens a causal argument rather than weakening it.
The explanation seems to be confusing internal validity with generalization (external validity). While C doesn't weaken the argument, E is still the better answer because completely ruling out reverse causality is a much more powerful logical strengthener on the LSAT than just controlling a couple of background variables.
I finally get it. E is correct because the abnormalities do not cause the snoring, and when we take that to be true then we support that the snoring will continue.
Getting rid of competing alternate hypothesis -> CAN STRENGTHEN ARGUMENT!
I just don't get how E strengthens... what? Are we looking to strengthen the premise, because the conclusion seems to be the very opposite of the answer! I JUST don't get it! smh
The conclusion is saying that snoring causes damage. So E it’s supporting the idea that it’s not the other way around which is strengthening the conclusion. I hope that kind of makes sense.
@KarlieS Choice E strengthens because it gets rid of another definitely possible explanation! In our causal reasoning lesson, we learned that when the premise gives us a correlation, you can have one of four explanations: 1) A causes B, 2) B causes A, 3) C causes both A & B, 4) No causal relationship.
Since the stimulus conclusion jumps to that snoring causes damage (A causes B). But what about the other 3 possible explanations of correlations? Picking answer E at least eliminates one of the possible explanations (B causes A), thus making our stimulus conclusion stronger.
@KarlieS think of it like this: any strengthens question that presents causal remanding can only be strengthened by attacking the correlation/causation pillars: b causes a vs a causing b, mere correlation, c causing a or causing b. Doing so gets rid of alt hypothesis/ the very things that dismantle causal reasoning. E represents dismantling the b causing a rather than a causing b.
everyone in the discussion wondering why C is wrong meanwhile I was so bent on it being B. LOOL
strengthens/weakens do NAWT make sense to me. hoping if i keep trucking and drill some it will click??
I confused the causal relationship so didn’t even think E could be correct and chose C instead. This was a hard one!
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills? Am I still searching for an Alternative hypothesis?
@AndreCarter LOL Same here!
@AndreCarter I (certified skeptic) instinctively criticize the stimulus arguments and think of my own alternative hypotheses or flaws when reading arguments. So how I approach the answer choices on Strengthen questions is, what covers that weakness I just came up with and eliminates it? So essentially looking for something to rule out that alternative hypothesis.
certified yapper on this one sheesh
so... strengthen: weakening the support to strengthen the hypothesis. Weaken: strengthen the support to weaken the hypothesis?
@rmuriel66 Right feels absolutely backwards, god have mercy on my soul when I take the LSAT.
This makes absolutely NO sense to me. How could E strengthen the passage?
@Jconroy18 it is the only one that makes sense compared to other answer choices to me so I used POE here
Great Explanation Ty Mr. JY
This is a great example of where 7sage could be improved with more rigorous use of causal inference in explanations. This question is a fantastic example of several key issues: A. measurement error: self report of snoring is a poor measure of snoring. Wrong answer because it weakens rather than strengthens the causal argument. B and D, collider bias: the study is conditioned on "having throat surgery". If the exposure variable (here snoring) or outcome (biopsy detectable damage) are associated with the variable conditioned on (having throat surgery), it creates a spurious correlation. Both B and D strengthen the argument by attacking that association, but they do not strengthen as much as eliminating reverse causality. C, homogeneity of test group: homogeneity is an issue for generalizability, but actually helps internal validity, because it reduces confounding (for the variables identified here as homogeneous). Because the stimulus causal claim is "snoring CAN damage the throat of the snorer", we don't need generalizability, and C also strengthens the argument, but again, not as much as eliminating the threat of reverse causality. E, reverse causality: this is the largest threat to the causal claim in a cross sectional study. Eliminating it is the choice that most strengthens the causal claim.
Was originally thinking that C was a mild strengthener because there was not a skewed distribution of age, weight, or health, meaning that both the snore and non-snore groups were similar in this way.
HOWEVER, if this were the case, then you could say that the conclusion from the biopsies does not translate to the general population as the conclusion suggests that it does. If everyone in the group were healthy college students, then a conclusion cannot be drawn about the general population, only about healthy college students.
@brydon125 C is certainly a mild strengthener, because the stimulus doesn't require the causal relationship to be generalizable. It says "snoring CAN damage the throat of the snorer", which is satisfied by a causal relationship in a specific subset. When you reduce the variability of potential confounders, you increase the likelihood that an association is actually causal. But it is much less of a strengthener than eliminating reverse causality, which is the biggest threat to a causal claim in a cross sectional (single time point) study, where you can't clearly establish that the proposed cause happened first. Since reverse causality is what E addresses, it's the right answer.
E is blocking the potential hypothesis that the stim got the cause and effect relationship backwards. That explanation would've said that it wasnt the snoring that cause the abnormalities, but the abnormalities that caused the snoring. Thus, E denies this possibility so it is the right answer. I just wish I didn't fall for C
damn, was between c and e and chose wrong
This made 0 sense to me. E did not seem like the right answer to me at all.
I'm confused on this one because answer choice C to me is saying ok great, there is no issue of age weight or other health problems causing the abnormality; therefore, it must be the snoring that is causing this.
@JackClemons85 You are correct that the test subjects being of similar age, weight, and health strengthens the idea that SOMETHING is causing the throat abnormalities. However, this is no way means that snoring is that cause. It could just as easily be a different cause like smoking or certain foods. Answer choice C actually weakens the argument by showing that alternative hypotheses are possible. The stimulus says, "snoring causes damage." We can strengthen this by eliminating the alternate hypothesis "damage causes snoring" (as seen in answer choice E).
This one made no sense tbh
I do not know why but this video and the last one does not seem to have helped me, I hope I am wrong and with practice I'll get these answers hopefully always correct., for now I'm still a little scared of the LSAT due to timing, but I am feeling better towards it.,
I initially chose C because I was ~tricked~...
E is correct because it eliminates reverse causation (which in turn eliminates any alternative hypothesis)
we want to strengthen
snore-->abnormalities
So by getting rid of the possibility of
abnormalities-->snore
we do that.
MY THOUGHT PROCESS
snoring can damage throat
a --- wrong bc irrelevant
The study relied on the subjects' self-reporting to determine whether or not they snored frequently.
b --- wrong don't know why the surgery was undertaken. we know that the surgery determined effects of snoring.
The patients' throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles.
c --- wrong bc irrelevant
All of the test subjects were of similar age and weight and in similar states of health.
d ---well can't be sure
People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery.
e ---abnormalities don't cause snoring, given the stim snoring might cause abnormalities. THEREFORE snoring can damage the throat CORRECT
The abnormalities in the throat muscles discovered in the study do not cause snoring.
Possible alternative hypothesis.
A causes B.
B causes A.
C causes A and C
No correlation
Strengthen is basically, stimulus: snoring causes abnormalities (A causes B)
Answer is basically B does not cause A.