Conclusion: Sunscreen is UNLIKELY to reduce risk of skin cancer
Why (support): over 25 years, skin cancer incidences have increased despite people using sunscreen.
Assumption (or how to analyze this): sunscreen COULD, in fact, help reduce skin cancer; people may get skin cancer for reasons beyond just using (or not) sunscreen [i.e. people may use sunscreen and still get cancer for other reasons]
Answer choice B (paraphrased): "old people develop skin cancer because of sunburns they got when they were young" --> Exactly: people develop skin cancer because of things like Age and Old sunburns, so whether they use sunscreen is irrelevant (they are still more susceptible; the fact that one in this category could use sunscreen and (God forbid) still get cancer isn't due to the sunscreen being ineffective, it's because they had a pre-existing condition..
I knew A and C were wrong. I was pretty sure D was wrong. B felt wrong at first blush because I totally forgot about the 25 years mentioned at the beginning of the stimulus. E seemed like the best option, followed by D, although D seemed off. I chose E on my initial take and D in my blind review. I was totally stumped until I got to the explanation and it mentioned the 25 years, and then it made total sense to me. I guess I probably should have re-read the stimulus in my blind review haha, but I felt very confident in my understanding of the conclusion / question stem going into the blind review, so I didn't. Sigh.
I don't even know why this question stumped me so bad but I literally spent an hour here maybe more. So i applaud myself for understanding the correct answer but I'm so f***ing annoyed at myself. I would've skipped this damn question in a real exam
I was between B & E bc i thought if only those who believed they were susceptible to skin cancer used sunscreen then there was a high population of ppl who probably needed to wear sunscreen but didn't.. hence the increased amount of ppl w skin cancer. However, i didn't have to jump through as many hoops for B.
Dang it took me 5 minutes to be comfortable with B. I knew it was right but when placed against E it was a challenge. The only reason I didn't pick E was because of the word believe.
E is wrong because just because someone believes themselves to be X doesn't mean that belief is valid.
This question got me because it felt like B didn't address the GROWTH of skin cancer incidents, only explaining why there would still be skin cancer despite sunscreen. I guess that's why the question says most weakens and not destroys.
I fell for the bait of E but would have picked B if i didn't let myself get finessed.
I saw B to be correct in my initial review by creating a causal chain that would show how those who were very old developed SC because they got sunburn from not using SS when they were very young. In essence stating that the causal link was from not using sunscreen.
/use ss when VY -c-> more sunburns -c-> greater chance of SC
use ss when VY -c-> less sunburn -c-> less chance of SC
Although this reasoning helped me to justify B as the correct answer, I see how it is different from JY's explanation where he attacks the correlation, most specifically the time gap difference between B and the stimulus.
I guess you could say I was attacking the conclusion although I did address the reasoning but I would like to see if someone could explain how this method I employed was not used by JY.
If, so on the basis that it is flawed, what is the flaw and how would it create problems for me on harder questions following up with why the focus on correlation is more effective for these types going forward
I had B selected as my answer choice and talked myself into answer choice E because it felt like B was introducing information not provided by the stimulus. In hindsight, THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT OF (S)/(w) SOMETIMES.
"If this were true, which one would MOST strengthen/weaken?"
Are there any indicators that "Skin cancer generally develops among the very old as a result of sunburns experienced when very young" means "skin cancer as a whole is most common in the very old..." versus "skin cancer that is seen specifically in the old develops for these reasons" ?? I interpreted it as the latter and that's why I got this question wrong.
I get why (B) is the answer, but Im still confused why (E) isnt the answer. Someone wrote below that it copied a style we saw previously, and there the logic held, here it didnt.
I understand that "believe" and "know" can discredit it -- so thats an easy cross out, although hard to catch, but suppose it had said "know" or suppose "believe" is enough to proceed:
Doesn't the fact that people who are more susceptible to SC using SS mean that if they wouldn't, they would get it more -- but it doesn't mean they wont get SC at all, only that now, they will get it at a lower rate. The fact that specifically people who are prone to SC use SS -- and that is what we can attribute the rise in SS use to-- doesn't mean the SC rate will go down -- bc those are the people who are most likely to get it in the first place!
Although now that I wrote it out I see the hole in it and how it doesn't in fact follow the pattern we saw last (about smoking and heart disease)
I recently listened to the 7sage podcast and they said "slow is smooth, smooth is fast," and I finally get it.
I was getting questions wrong when I sped through the stimulus and only took in the very basic information. But, the fact that sunscreen use only increased over the past 25 years is the important part to the answer. When I move slowly through the stimulus, I get a smooth understanding, and that smooth understanding gives me the ability to choose the answer as fast as possible. WOW!!!
Can someone explain how B is not "outside the scope of the argument"? Is it because in weaken questions you have to take it as true no matter how outside of the argument the answer feels? Unsure if that makes any sense haha
i'm an idiot. read over "old" and "young" super briefly and thought that answer was making some irrelevant causal claim, which led me to settle with the way worse E answer
--When you see that it is an observational study instead of an experimental study, you will often be able to focus on the fact that there wasn't a control group, to either weaken or strengthen it.
--"People who know they are X" are a smaller subset of "people who are X." There are many people who have cancer, but do not know yet. So if the LSAT is talking about the people who know they are X, remember that it is not talking about all the people who are X.
--Don't assume that when X increases among a group, it does so evenly among all its members. "Increasingly widespread use" does not necessarily mean that everyone is using sunscreen more, perhaps a certain demographic still is not using sunscreen often.
I got the answer correct, but I was wondering if anyone else came to the conclusion that D was incorrect through a different way than as provided. For me, I read D as saying those who were vulnerable spent less time in the sun, meaning they wouldn't be a relevant party to the "experiment," to begin with. Because they are already staying out of the sun, there is no way to assess what impact sunscreen or the sun has on them. But the explanation seems to imply that they are part of the "experiment." Is this train of thought technically wrong?
3
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.
111 comments
Think of it this way:
Conclusion: Sunscreen is UNLIKELY to reduce risk of skin cancer
Why (support): over 25 years, skin cancer incidences have increased despite people using sunscreen.
Assumption (or how to analyze this): sunscreen COULD, in fact, help reduce skin cancer; people may get skin cancer for reasons beyond just using (or not) sunscreen [i.e. people may use sunscreen and still get cancer for other reasons]
Answer choice B (paraphrased): "old people develop skin cancer because of sunburns they got when they were young" --> Exactly: people develop skin cancer because of things like Age and Old sunburns, so whether they use sunscreen is irrelevant (they are still more susceptible; the fact that one in this category could use sunscreen and (God forbid) still get cancer isn't due to the sunscreen being ineffective, it's because they had a pre-existing condition..
I knew A and C were wrong. I was pretty sure D was wrong. B felt wrong at first blush because I totally forgot about the 25 years mentioned at the beginning of the stimulus. E seemed like the best option, followed by D, although D seemed off. I chose E on my initial take and D in my blind review. I was totally stumped until I got to the explanation and it mentioned the 25 years, and then it made total sense to me. I guess I probably should have re-read the stimulus in my blind review haha, but I felt very confident in my understanding of the conclusion / question stem going into the blind review, so I didn't. Sigh.
I don't even know why this question stumped me so bad but I literally spent an hour here maybe more. So i applaud myself for understanding the correct answer but I'm so f***ing annoyed at myself. I would've skipped this damn question in a real exam
The easiest one yet
I was between B & E bc i thought if only those who believed they were susceptible to skin cancer used sunscreen then there was a high population of ppl who probably needed to wear sunscreen but didn't.. hence the increased amount of ppl w skin cancer. However, i didn't have to jump through as many hoops for B.
Dang it took me 5 minutes to be comfortable with B. I knew it was right but when placed against E it was a challenge. The only reason I didn't pick E was because of the word believe.
E is wrong because just because someone believes themselves to be X doesn't mean that belief is valid.
got it but 40 seconds over YIKES! considered E way too long
B seems completely irrelevant to the question. This one makes very little sense to me.
This question got me because it felt like B didn't address the GROWTH of skin cancer incidents, only explaining why there would still be skin cancer despite sunscreen. I guess that's why the question says most weakens and not destroys.
I fell for the bait of E but would have picked B if i didn't let myself get finessed.
I saw B to be correct in my initial review by creating a causal chain that would show how those who were very old developed SC because they got sunburn from not using SS when they were very young. In essence stating that the causal link was from not using sunscreen.
/use ss when VY -c-> more sunburns -c-> greater chance of SC
use ss when VY -c-> less sunburn -c-> less chance of SC
Although this reasoning helped me to justify B as the correct answer, I see how it is different from JY's explanation where he attacks the correlation, most specifically the time gap difference between B and the stimulus.
I guess you could say I was attacking the conclusion although I did address the reasoning but I would like to see if someone could explain how this method I employed was not used by JY.
If, so on the basis that it is flawed, what is the flaw and how would it create problems for me on harder questions following up with why the focus on correlation is more effective for these types going forward
So B is the correct answer as it weakens the time slot in the phenomenon?
this is dumb i feel like i didnt choose B because it felt irrelevant
I had B selected as my answer choice and talked myself into answer choice E because it felt like B was introducing information not provided by the stimulus. In hindsight, THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT OF (S)/(w) SOMETIMES.
"If this were true, which one would MOST strengthen/weaken?"
Are there any indicators that "Skin cancer generally develops among the very old as a result of sunburns experienced when very young" means "skin cancer as a whole is most common in the very old..." versus "skin cancer that is seen specifically in the old develops for these reasons" ?? I interpreted it as the latter and that's why I got this question wrong.
This took me so long.. but I got it right on the first attempt. lol
I literally just wrote this in my notes from the last question, yet I still picked E...
"Beware! Wrong answers often have X Believes _ . This does not mean what they believe is true, just that X believes it..."
You've got to be kidding me...how is it not E?
I get why (B) is the answer, but Im still confused why (E) isnt the answer. Someone wrote below that it copied a style we saw previously, and there the logic held, here it didnt.
I understand that "believe" and "know" can discredit it -- so thats an easy cross out, although hard to catch, but suppose it had said "know" or suppose "believe" is enough to proceed:
Doesn't the fact that people who are more susceptible to SC using SS mean that if they wouldn't, they would get it more -- but it doesn't mean they wont get SC at all, only that now, they will get it at a lower rate. The fact that specifically people who are prone to SC use SS -- and that is what we can attribute the rise in SS use to-- doesn't mean the SC rate will go down -- bc those are the people who are most likely to get it in the first place!
Although now that I wrote it out I see the hole in it and how it doesn't in fact follow the pattern we saw last (about smoking and heart disease)
Good luck all!
I recently listened to the 7sage podcast and they said "slow is smooth, smooth is fast," and I finally get it.
I was getting questions wrong when I sped through the stimulus and only took in the very basic information. But, the fact that sunscreen use only increased over the past 25 years is the important part to the answer. When I move slowly through the stimulus, I get a smooth understanding, and that smooth understanding gives me the ability to choose the answer as fast as possible. WOW!!!
How the heck did he figure this out in 1 minute?
Can someone explain how B is not "outside the scope of the argument"? Is it because in weaken questions you have to take it as true no matter how outside of the argument the answer feels? Unsure if that makes any sense haha
i'm an idiot. read over "old" and "young" super briefly and thought that answer was making some irrelevant causal claim, which led me to settle with the way worse E answer
I got this right...I just second guessed myself and got it wrong during blind review.
My highlights from this lesson:
--When you see that it is an observational study instead of an experimental study, you will often be able to focus on the fact that there wasn't a control group, to either weaken or strengthen it.
--"People who know they are X" are a smaller subset of "people who are X." There are many people who have cancer, but do not know yet. So if the LSAT is talking about the people who know they are X, remember that it is not talking about all the people who are X.
--Don't assume that when X increases among a group, it does so evenly among all its members. "Increasingly widespread use" does not necessarily mean that everyone is using sunscreen more, perhaps a certain demographic still is not using sunscreen often.
I got the answer correct, but I was wondering if anyone else came to the conclusion that D was incorrect through a different way than as provided. For me, I read D as saying those who were vulnerable spent less time in the sun, meaning they wouldn't be a relevant party to the "experiment," to begin with. Because they are already staying out of the sun, there is no way to assess what impact sunscreen or the sun has on them. But the explanation seems to imply that they are part of the "experiment." Is this train of thought technically wrong?