A) The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
(A) This tells us that the beta carotene foods are processed more efficiently in the human body vs. the supplements so this definitely explains why there is a change in results. EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY (difference between processing of beta-carotene depending on what you consume: foods vs. Supplements).
B) Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
(B) This focuses in on the different dates of the study, if beta carotene needs to be taken for longer than 12 years, then that explains why there was no effect in the second study. EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY (study 2 is flawed; study 1 was 24 years long and people saw results; study 2 was 12 years long and there were no results, maybe it needs to be taken longer than 12 years).
C) Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body's absorption of beta-carotene.
(C) Gives another factor that is present in the foods rich in beta carotene that the supplements do not have. EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY (foods (study 1) are different from supplements (study 2); why? —> because they have other nutrients that assist in the absorption; subsequently leads to different results).
E) In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY: Let’s assume that AC (E) is TRUE, and look at Study 1 (24 years long): From the answer choice, what do we know?
% of Smokers with a High intake of BC = LOW } they are smokers, but they have high BC, so that makes them less likely to die from Cancer/Heart Desease.
% Smokers with low intake of BC = HIGH } so they are MORE likely to die because of low BC intake. But they are also smokers, which also causes death because of cancer. So are they more likely to die from Smoking, or low BC? We don't know, and we can't tell!
Therein-lies the discrepancy. The 24-year old study has smokers which have low intake of BC = so they are more likely to die. But it could be because of smoking! Or more because of smoking than low BC intake!
D) In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
What does this do to solve the discrepancy? The only thing that we may incur is whether the studies were or were not controlled; assuming that both were controlled, this doesn’t solve the discrepancy.
What makes consuming high beta carotene to have negative correlation with the effect? This analysis is subtly confusing and rewiring how to see cause and effect relationship.
Sweet goodness I came back after finishing this section to review and I just barely got it. I only eliminated E because i reread the stim and saw it wasn't a direct experiment. it was about the subjects and not the beta carotene.
Less smoking-> more beta carotene> less cancer risk. So maybe they were just healthier people.
In simple terms, isn't E basically saying that out of this study of 100 people, there are 4 people who take lots of BC and smoke and then there are 50 people who take very little BC and smoke. If so, can we just say that it would be wrong to draw any conclusions when the group allocations are this off? Of course the results of the study are going to be wrong if the group numbers can distort things.
This question throws me off so badly because I thought we have to throw out real world knowledge when it comes to lsat questions so we don't get influenced to answer another way. Now E is requiring us to use our real life knowledge as proof that it is right.... my brraainnnn
As I progress through the lesson plans without drilling different question types, encountering a new type unexpectedly becomes very challenging. I confidently chose my answer after thorough consideration and significant investment in BR to confirm it, assuming it was a WSE question. A more prominent warning when the next screen resembles the previous one would be beneficial, as I moved forward unaware of the change and did not pay enough attention to notice RRE. Discovering that my confirmed BR answer was incorrect came as a shock, only realizing the issue after when I (rarely) checked the discussion board. Everything finally clicked, but now I need to revisit the question to reassess my answer choice before watching the video. Even if my original answer would have been wrong if it were a WSE question, at least I wouldn't feel tricked. I understand it's good to practice shifting between question types, as the LSAT presents, but that's what drills and PTs are for, not the core curriculum. It's quite frustrating.
great googly moogly, RRE questions make me their bitch. i've conquered a lot of level 4 and 5 difficulty questions for other LR types including parallel reasoning and WSE, but almost every time it's RRE, i completely airball. the worst i've encountered so far is that god-awful deer population question from LSAT 128 section 3 (IYKYK). i've even gotten level 1 RREs wrong LMAO
drilling exclusively RRE almost feels counter-intuitive at this point because 1.) i've dedicated entire days to it—i'm just not improving and 2.) the amount of new entries i have to put in my wrong answer journal quickly pile up. i'll find some way to make it over this hurdle, but in the meantime, i'm going to selfishly hope my test has few RRE questions. i can't even say "i hope they're easy" because i still flub the easy ones 💀
I look at answer A and it says "efficiently" in the answer. Doesn't this imply that in both studies that Beta Carotene is taken in by the human body? In the 24 year study it is taken in better than in the 12 year study, but it is taken in during the 12 year study less efficiently. The explanation given for answer A states that in the 12 year study the Beta Carotene was not taken in. This is a mistake imho. It still has relevance if you attribute efficiency of Beta Carotene uptake as a link to low cancer levels, but this does not imply that Beta Carotene in the 12 year study was not taken in as the explanation indicates.
(D) does absolutely nothing in terms of providing a resolution. It's basically saying that they've done their study effectively yet still produced these results. How does that resolve the issue? It doesn't.
(E) basically says that for those whom had a high content of beta-carotene in their diet, a small percentage of them smoked. Those that had a low content of beta-carotene in their diet, more of them smoked. This would explain the 24 year study found that those with a high diet high in beta-carotene had less cancer and heart disease - smoking was the cause. So it wasn't actually the high beta-carotene diet that prevented cancer and heart disease, it was smoking less. With this in mind it makes sense that the 12 year study produced nothing. Thus, we've resoled the issue.
Would an accurate reading of E be that the data in the 24-year study was bad? The reasoning I used was that the study had more smokers in the low-intake group. Which, skewed the results. The bad data would help to explain the discrepancy... right? Or is my translation of the grammar wrong here?
Isn't the question asking about the "discrepancy between the 2 studies"? I chose E because at first glance it doesnt even address the 12-years study or anything related to the comparison between foods v.s. supplements, so how are E reaffirming the logic of bc-supp =no=cause=> cancer/heart-disease? #help #feedback
Yes, the relation between smoking and cancer is general knowledge but I hate that the writers pick and choose what assumptions are reasonable and what is not. In one question we say "do not make any assumptions" and in the other one we say "well that's basic knowledge". How am I supposed to know what the writer believes is reasonable??!!!
If you're struggling with understanding why E is wrong and D is right, don't be alarmed. It took me 45+ minutes (after coming back to this the next day) for me to dissect and understand it. E is a bit convoluted
Ultimately, E is wrong because it's offering a hypothesis that explains the passage, which would resolve the discrepancy (but we're looking for the one that does NOT resolve the discrepancy). It just happens to be an alternative hypothesis. E is saying that beta-carotene just happened to correlate with health outcomes from smoking. E is saying beta-careotene doesn't actually have an impact on health outcomes. Instead, E is saying smokers who ALSO happened to eat low beta-carotene were a bigger group in the study than smokers who also happened to eat high beta-carotene. Either way, smoking is bad for you, but the results being that low-beta carotene correlated with likelihood of cancer and heart disease can actually be attributed to the fact that there was a larger group of smokers in the study who ALSO happened to eat low-beta carotene.
can someone explain this to me??? I feel like an idiot lol I was between D and E but chose E because I thought "what does smoking have to do with anything" and was just trying to stay within the time goal. after watching the video, I now understand E (kind of) but now I somehow feel like D DOES help resolve the discrepancy??? like if half the people took BC supplements and half took placebo, then yeah....of course the group as a whole did not yield any positive/negative effects because half of them weren't even taking anything??? so my thinking is "sh*tty experiment design is a resolution for the discrepancy". am I being dense?? someone plz help lol I've read through the comments and the explanations of D being correct have not helped my understanding
4
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
137 comments
A) The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
(A) This tells us that the beta carotene foods are processed more efficiently in the human body vs. the supplements so this definitely explains why there is a change in results. EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY (difference between processing of beta-carotene depending on what you consume: foods vs. Supplements).
B) Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
(B) This focuses in on the different dates of the study, if beta carotene needs to be taken for longer than 12 years, then that explains why there was no effect in the second study. EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY (study 2 is flawed; study 1 was 24 years long and people saw results; study 2 was 12 years long and there were no results, maybe it needs to be taken longer than 12 years).
C) Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body's absorption of beta-carotene.
(C) Gives another factor that is present in the foods rich in beta carotene that the supplements do not have. EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY (foods (study 1) are different from supplements (study 2); why? —> because they have other nutrients that assist in the absorption; subsequently leads to different results).
E) In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
EXPLAINS DISCREPANCY: Let’s assume that AC (E) is TRUE, and look at Study 1 (24 years long): From the answer choice, what do we know?
% of Smokers with a High intake of BC = LOW } they are smokers, but they have high BC, so that makes them less likely to die from Cancer/Heart Desease.
% Smokers with low intake of BC = HIGH } so they are MORE likely to die because of low BC intake. But they are also smokers, which also causes death because of cancer. So are they more likely to die from Smoking, or low BC? We don't know, and we can't tell!
Therein-lies the discrepancy. The 24-year old study has smokers which have low intake of BC = so they are more likely to die. But it could be because of smoking! Or more because of smoking than low BC intake!
D) In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
What does this do to solve the discrepancy? The only thing that we may incur is whether the studies were or were not controlled; assuming that both were controlled, this doesn’t solve the discrepancy.
For these type of questions: "Except..." the correct answer will be contrary to stimulus's conclusion and or will not be supported by the stimulus!
Does anyone have a helpful advice for approaching "EXCEPT" type of questions?
Is there a more efficient way to hunt for the answer without POE as I find that it's quite time consuming?
anyone else struggling with rre? >.> i barely get any of the questions correct and i'd be lucky if i get it right on blind review. advice?
What makes consuming high beta carotene to have negative correlation with the effect? This analysis is subtly confusing and rewiring how to see cause and effect relationship.
Sweet goodness I came back after finishing this section to review and I just barely got it. I only eliminated E because i reread the stim and saw it wasn't a direct experiment. it was about the subjects and not the beta carotene.
Less smoking-> more beta carotene> less cancer risk. So maybe they were just healthier people.
In simple terms, isn't E basically saying that out of this study of 100 people, there are 4 people who take lots of BC and smoke and then there are 50 people who take very little BC and smoke. If so, can we just say that it would be wrong to draw any conclusions when the group allocations are this off? Of course the results of the study are going to be wrong if the group numbers can distort things.
This question throws me off so badly because I thought we have to throw out real world knowledge when it comes to lsat questions so we don't get influenced to answer another way. Now E is requiring us to use our real life knowledge as proof that it is right.... my brraainnnn
As I progress through the lesson plans without drilling different question types, encountering a new type unexpectedly becomes very challenging. I confidently chose my answer after thorough consideration and significant investment in BR to confirm it, assuming it was a WSE question. A more prominent warning when the next screen resembles the previous one would be beneficial, as I moved forward unaware of the change and did not pay enough attention to notice RRE. Discovering that my confirmed BR answer was incorrect came as a shock, only realizing the issue after when I (rarely) checked the discussion board. Everything finally clicked, but now I need to revisit the question to reassess my answer choice before watching the video. Even if my original answer would have been wrong if it were a WSE question, at least I wouldn't feel tricked. I understand it's good to practice shifting between question types, as the LSAT presents, but that's what drills and PTs are for, not the core curriculum. It's quite frustrating.
great googly moogly, RRE questions make me their bitch. i've conquered a lot of level 4 and 5 difficulty questions for other LR types including parallel reasoning and WSE, but almost every time it's RRE, i completely airball. the worst i've encountered so far is that god-awful deer population question from LSAT 128 section 3 (IYKYK). i've even gotten level 1 RREs wrong LMAO
drilling exclusively RRE almost feels counter-intuitive at this point because 1.) i've dedicated entire days to it—i'm just not improving and 2.) the amount of new entries i have to put in my wrong answer journal quickly pile up. i'll find some way to make it over this hurdle, but in the meantime, i'm going to selfishly hope my test has few RRE questions. i can't even say "i hope they're easy" because i still flub the easy ones 💀
boy do I love when im trying to learn a new question type and we return to an old one to stop me from learning the new type
i get that the answer is d and i got it correct, but the reasons that e is incorrect confuses me. does anyone have an explanation in simpler terms?
I look at answer A and it says "efficiently" in the answer. Doesn't this imply that in both studies that Beta Carotene is taken in by the human body? In the 24 year study it is taken in better than in the 12 year study, but it is taken in during the 12 year study less efficiently. The explanation given for answer A states that in the 12 year study the Beta Carotene was not taken in. This is a mistake imho. It still has relevance if you attribute efficiency of Beta Carotene uptake as a link to low cancer levels, but this does not imply that Beta Carotene in the 12 year study was not taken in as the explanation indicates.
#feedback
(D) does absolutely nothing in terms of providing a resolution. It's basically saying that they've done their study effectively yet still produced these results. How does that resolve the issue? It doesn't.
(E) basically says that for those whom had a high content of beta-carotene in their diet, a small percentage of them smoked. Those that had a low content of beta-carotene in their diet, more of them smoked. This would explain the 24 year study found that those with a high diet high in beta-carotene had less cancer and heart disease - smoking was the cause. So it wasn't actually the high beta-carotene diet that prevented cancer and heart disease, it was smoking less. With this in mind it makes sense that the 12 year study produced nothing. Thus, we've resoled the issue.
Would an accurate reading of E be that the data in the 24-year study was bad? The reasoning I used was that the study had more smokers in the low-intake group. Which, skewed the results. The bad data would help to explain the discrepancy... right? Or is my translation of the grammar wrong here?
As soon as I start feeling confident, I get humbled :(
Literally wrote in my blind review that D strengthens the second study and doesn't explain... and then I picked a different answer facepalms
Isn't the question asking about the "discrepancy between the 2 studies"? I chose E because at first glance it doesnt even address the 12-years study or anything related to the comparison between foods v.s. supplements, so how are E reaffirming the logic of bc-supp =no=cause=> cancer/heart-disease? #help #feedback
I hate RRE
Would it be appropriate to rule out E simply because smoking doesn't specifically apply to the info in the stimulus?
Yes, the relation between smoking and cancer is general knowledge but I hate that the writers pick and choose what assumptions are reasonable and what is not. In one question we say "do not make any assumptions" and in the other one we say "well that's basic knowledge". How am I supposed to know what the writer believes is reasonable??!!!
RRE is my nemesis.
If you're struggling with understanding why E is wrong and D is right, don't be alarmed. It took me 45+ minutes (after coming back to this the next day) for me to dissect and understand it. E is a bit convoluted
Ultimately, E is wrong because it's offering a hypothesis that explains the passage, which would resolve the discrepancy (but we're looking for the one that does NOT resolve the discrepancy). It just happens to be an alternative hypothesis. E is saying that beta-carotene just happened to correlate with health outcomes from smoking. E is saying beta-careotene doesn't actually have an impact on health outcomes. Instead, E is saying smokers who ALSO happened to eat low beta-carotene were a bigger group in the study than smokers who also happened to eat high beta-carotene. Either way, smoking is bad for you, but the results being that low-beta carotene correlated with likelihood of cancer and heart disease can actually be attributed to the fact that there was a larger group of smokers in the study who ALSO happened to eat low-beta carotene.
#feedback when we pause the video, the screen goes blank. Is there a way to fix this issue?
can someone explain this to me??? I feel like an idiot lol I was between D and E but chose E because I thought "what does smoking have to do with anything" and was just trying to stay within the time goal. after watching the video, I now understand E (kind of) but now I somehow feel like D DOES help resolve the discrepancy??? like if half the people took BC supplements and half took placebo, then yeah....of course the group as a whole did not yield any positive/negative effects because half of them weren't even taking anything??? so my thinking is "sh*tty experiment design is a resolution for the discrepancy". am I being dense?? someone plz help lol I've read through the comments and the explanations of D being correct have not helped my understanding