In D, shouldn't this "People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery" translate into surgery people = < non-surgery people? Instead of '= >' ??? I am confused
I realized the hardest thing for me in these types of questions is being able to quickly see the assumptions and support and thought process between the conclusion and the alternative conclusions with its assumptions under the time constraint. is it just something gained with repetition or are there any tips on how to improve this?
E ruled out a possibility of reversed cause, hence strengthening the argument. All the other answer choices were somewhat irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument (how snoring and abnormality had a correlation).
@ranfeng This is what stood out to me the most when evaluating each answer choice, most of the other ones were seemingly irrelevant and allowed me to deduce quicker which question(s) were worth examining. C showed seemingly no support and D was simply irrelevant.
After reading the stimulus I thought of an alternative hypothesis that the surgeries were causing the throat abnormalities. My takeaway is that the best possible answer choice for a strengthen question is taking the x->y relationship and rejecting that y->x. Even though there could be unlimited alternative hypothesis you could think of that make equal or more sense logically, you need to favor the rejection of the conclusion causing the premise. I'm not sure why, but that's the lesson I learned from this riddle I mean question.
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 in the conclusion. Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the damage was caused by the snoring. Then E says damage/abnormalities didn't cause the snoring; so then snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities.
@JAndonian16 I think that answer choice E does not guarantee the truth of snoring causing damage/abnormalities, it just makes it more likely to be true (because you eliminated the possibility of reverse causality). My impression from the lesson was that the "bar" for the strength of the conclusion in the stimulus is not at the "must be true" level, so choosing E does not mean snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities, it just increases the likelihood of it being true.
@Hashibiro It kind of does guarantee it though. There's a correlation between A (snoring) and B (throat damage). Stimulus is arguing that A caused B. Answer E says that B didn't cause A. So If B didn't cause A, then A must have caused B. This is a strengthen question, not a mbt but I see what you're saying.
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
123 comments
Abnormalities do not cause snoring=ABNORMALITIES CAUSED BY SNORING
In D, shouldn't this "People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery" translate into surgery people = < non-surgery people? Instead of '= >' ??? I am confused
@aikol.iva agreed. I think he may have misspoke...was thinking the same.
I realized the hardest thing for me in these types of questions is being able to quickly see the assumptions and support and thought process between the conclusion and the alternative conclusions with its assumptions under the time constraint. is it just something gained with repetition or are there any tips on how to improve this?
E ruled out a possibility of reversed cause, hence strengthening the argument. All the other answer choices were somewhat irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument (how snoring and abnormality had a correlation).
@ranfeng This is what stood out to me the most when evaluating each answer choice, most of the other ones were seemingly irrelevant and allowed me to deduce quicker which question(s) were worth examining. C showed seemingly no support and D was simply irrelevant.
what in the actual f is this question.... I was so confident in C and was like there's no way it's E
After reading the stimulus I thought of an alternative hypothesis that the surgeries were causing the throat abnormalities. My takeaway is that the best possible answer choice for a strengthen question is taking the x->y relationship and rejecting that y->x. Even though there could be unlimited alternative hypothesis you could think of that make equal or more sense logically, you need to favor the rejection of the conclusion causing the premise. I'm not sure why, but that's the lesson I learned from this riddle I mean question.
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 in the conclusion. Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the damage was caused by the snoring. Then E says damage/abnormalities didn't cause the snoring; so then snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities.
@JAndonian16 thank you! This helped so much
@JAndonian16 I think that answer choice E does not guarantee the truth of snoring causing damage/abnormalities, it just makes it more likely to be true (because you eliminated the possibility of reverse causality). My impression from the lesson was that the "bar" for the strength of the conclusion in the stimulus is not at the "must be true" level, so choosing E does not mean snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities, it just increases the likelihood of it being true.
@JAndonian16 omg you are genius
@Hashibiro It kind of does guarantee it though. There's a correlation between A (snoring) and B (throat damage). Stimulus is arguing that A caused B. Answer E says that B didn't cause A. So If B didn't cause A, then A must have caused B. This is a strengthen question, not a mbt but I see what you're saying.
~ @16:26 did he mean to say equal to or less likely than non-snorers? Or did he mean to say more?
@J.Y.Ping would love if you could clarify what you meant here!
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.
@MA66 I was confused by this too
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.