I think it's because of the "increasingly widespread use of sunscreen" that explains it. I thought the same thing, but if there's an increasingly widespread use, it's reasonable to assume that significantly less people used it decades ago. And if most people that develop skin cancer are older and it's because of sunburns, it might be safe to assume that they didn't use sunscreen.
"Although most studies reviewed in this paper reported adverse neurotoxic effects of UV filters at concentrations substantially higher that those observed in environment and human tissues, these studies should not be disregarded, as they afford potential pathomechanisms which might occur in other conditions or sensitive populations... Unfortunately, the effects of repeated, long-term and low-dose exposures to single compounds and mixtures of various UV filters is also poorly studied. More studies are needed to evaluate the realistic hazard of contemporary sunscreens."
If this helps guys, for weakening questions, find the answer that explains another alternative conclusion that makes sense to the stimulus not necessarily the premises. Hope, this helps.
Definitely helps. For this one, the correct answer (b) proposes another alternative conclusion: "Skin cancer develops a long time after exposure to the sun." This answer allows us a different explanation of the stated correlation (decrease in sunscreen use will cause increase [or no change] in skin cancer) to a contrasting hypothesis that otherwise explains the phenomenon (increase in early exposure to sun will cause increase in skin cancer). Is this a fair interpretation?
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!!!
100% Agree, when I am worried about the time crunch I make a lot more mistakes. Instead, when I am fairly confident in my understanding of the argument, I am able to comfortably come to the right answer choice without doubting myself.
I thought the exact same thing! I chose E and quickly moved on. But on a deeper look, this time, it's not quite the same as the jogging question or the dramamine question. If we assume that the beliefs in Answer Choice E is true, then that means that people most susceptible to skin cancer are using sunscreen most regularly. Then why is skin cancer still increasing? It doesn't weaken our argument.
In the jogging question, it wasn't that people who stretched got MORE injuries than those who didn't. It was just that they got about the same amount of injuries, so maybe the people who stretched were just prone to getting even more injuries.
But here, if this were a self-selecting group phenomenon, then maybe it would've been that the most susceptible to skin cancer are using sunscreen most regularly and their rates of skin cancer are down or at least have not increased.
I hope that's the right way of thinking about this question. It really tripped me up! Especially because B is sooooo subtle.
they're also mine. some tips that have helped me is to take your time. i'd suggest you take 5 question drills focused on weaken questions and rly take ur time with each question to poke holes into the arguments. for the blind review, you can even come up with counterarguments that would weaken the arguments. also, highlight the hypothesis/conclusion. i find that doing so helps me direct my focus on the argument that im supposed to be weakening. some of the answer choices will throw the premise/phenomenon into the answer choice to throw u off. by highlighting, u can quickly disregard answer choice(s) that seem to only attempt to weaken the phenomenon/premise.
For me, I tend not to focus on defining what part is the hypothesis, phenomenon or whatever jargon etc, all I care is finding options that raise questions, discredits or raise alternative explanations for the passage's argument.
Wouldn't weakening the phenomenon make the original conclusion less valid, though? I guess I'm a bit confused about what to attach between the conclusion and the premise.
--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.
@aldertree00644 Thanks for this!! Super helpful! I added in my notes to not assume that "people who believe they are X" overlap completely with "people who are X"! It's more of a venn diagram in my mind
I liked B initially, but chose E instead. My logic for E was the same for the jogger/stretching situation. If people who are prone to injuries tend to stretch more, then we can't blame stretching as the cause for injuries. Similarly, if people who (this is the key difference)... BELIEVE they are more prone to skin cancer choose to use more sunscreen, we can't blame the sunscreen. I get the word "believe" is the key word that should get me to move to a different answer, but I disagree with the rest of the explanation for why E is wrong. Meaning, I don't agree you can say the correlation remains intake. I'll leave it at that and continue to eat my sour grapes over here. :)
@littleflo to be honest i am still not very condifent about this question type. i am trying to join the live classes that target WSE subtype. maybe watching some live class recordings on this will help. and i also realized i cannot get stuck here, i have to keep moving on, so i will just keep coming back to this to review and drill while learning new question types.
We saw the same answer style with the question about the runners stretching a few lessons ago. I chose E as well, but B looked attractive because i ignored that "increasingly widespread use of sunscreen" which i think indicates B
That’s not fair. The basis of getting this question correct is praying that your assumption of the years are a certain amount. I was thinking when taking this question if it fits the timeline of 25 years i’d absolutely choose this answer. This is a question that should be looked at again because there are other questions that directly contradict the thought process of choosing B.
@Endritkasumaj ok but if you picked E you're assuming is less reasonable because belief doesn't make it true. That's why its wrong bro, doesn't the test get a bunch of doubt on some questions but yet they still remain, that means its been reviewed and they have their reasons for why its right.
ive gotten just about all of these wrong. I genuinely think this is just bs because it shouldnt be this hard to understand how to weaken and stretghen things
167 comments
B being the answer is wild
how tf am i supposed to assume that they didnt wear sunscreen when they were young?! i am dying with these weakening questions rn help me
I think it's because of the "increasingly widespread use of sunscreen" that explains it. I thought the same thing, but if there's an increasingly widespread use, it's reasonable to assume that significantly less people used it decades ago. And if most people that develop skin cancer are older and it's because of sunburns, it might be safe to assume that they didn't use sunscreen.
the answer is insane omg
ok but if you're reading this, this is a reminder that you should be wearing sunscreen everyday.
Enjoy your oxybenzone, et al.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615097/
"Although most studies reviewed in this paper reported adverse neurotoxic effects of UV filters at concentrations substantially higher that those observed in environment and human tissues, these studies should not be disregarded, as they afford potential pathomechanisms which might occur in other conditions or sensitive populations... Unfortunately, the effects of repeated, long-term and low-dose exposures to single compounds and mixtures of various UV filters is also poorly studied. More studies are needed to evaluate the realistic hazard of contemporary sunscreens."
Weakened that hypothesis for ya.
use mineral then
Asking us to guess the test writer's interpretation of very old and very young is curel. 25 years is a long time.
@josh_ullrich Curel, coincidentally, is a company that makes sunscreen products
gotta be careful with those answer choices where it says someone "feels" or "believes" a certain thing. Facts don't really care about feelings!
This is honestly a horrible question and is way too ambiguous for the reader to make that assumption.
its got to be the nastiest one yet. it disgusts me.
If this helps guys, for weakening questions, find the answer that explains another alternative conclusion that makes sense to the stimulus not necessarily the premises. Hope, this helps.
Definitely helps. For this one, the correct answer (b) proposes another alternative conclusion: "Skin cancer develops a long time after exposure to the sun." This answer allows us a different explanation of the stated correlation (decrease in sunscreen use will cause increase [or no change] in skin cancer) to a contrasting hypothesis that otherwise explains the phenomenon (increase in early exposure to sun will cause increase in skin cancer). Is this a fair interpretation?
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!!!
100% Agree, when I am worried about the time crunch I make a lot more mistakes. Instead, when I am fairly confident in my understanding of the argument, I am able to comfortably come to the right answer choice without doubting myself.
When you had the right answer but switch to the beautiful trap answer last second.
but E seems a lot like the whole self-selecting group phenomenon
I thought the exact same thing! I chose E and quickly moved on. But on a deeper look, this time, it's not quite the same as the jogging question or the dramamine question. If we assume that the beliefs in Answer Choice E is true, then that means that people most susceptible to skin cancer are using sunscreen most regularly. Then why is skin cancer still increasing? It doesn't weaken our argument.
In the jogging question, it wasn't that people who stretched got MORE injuries than those who didn't. It was just that they got about the same amount of injuries, so maybe the people who stretched were just prone to getting even more injuries.
But here, if this were a self-selecting group phenomenon, then maybe it would've been that the most susceptible to skin cancer are using sunscreen most regularly and their rates of skin cancer are down or at least have not increased.
I hope that's the right way of thinking about this question. It really tripped me up! Especially because B is sooooo subtle.
this is dumb i feel like i didnt choose B because it felt irrelevant
These weaken questions are my worst area, no idea how I can improve them as I just don't seem to grasp the holes in the arguments
they're also mine. some tips that have helped me is to take your time. i'd suggest you take 5 question drills focused on weaken questions and rly take ur time with each question to poke holes into the arguments. for the blind review, you can even come up with counterarguments that would weaken the arguments. also, highlight the hypothesis/conclusion. i find that doing so helps me direct my focus on the argument that im supposed to be weakening. some of the answer choices will throw the premise/phenomenon into the answer choice to throw u off. by highlighting, u can quickly disregard answer choice(s) that seem to only attempt to weaken the phenomenon/premise.
i hope this helps/makes some sort of sense
For me, I tend not to focus on defining what part is the hypothesis, phenomenon or whatever jargon etc, all I care is finding options that raise questions, discredits or raise alternative explanations for the passage's argument.
Wouldn't weakening the phenomenon make the original conclusion less valid, though? I guess I'm a bit confused about what to attach between the conclusion and the premise.
How the heck did he figure this out in 1 minute?
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.
@aldertree00644 Thanks for this!! Super helpful! I added in my notes to not assume that "people who believe they are X" overlap completely with "people who are X"! It's more of a venn diagram in my mind
I liked B initially, but chose E instead. My logic for E was the same for the jogger/stretching situation. If people who are prone to injuries tend to stretch more, then we can't blame stretching as the cause for injuries. Similarly, if people who (this is the key difference)... BELIEVE they are more prone to skin cancer choose to use more sunscreen, we can't blame the sunscreen. I get the word "believe" is the key word that should get me to move to a different answer, but I disagree with the rest of the explanation for why E is wrong. Meaning, I don't agree you can say the correlation remains intake. I'll leave it at that and continue to eat my sour grapes over here. :)
this question gave me a major brain fart moment
i find the weaken and strengthen questions the most challenging so far..
@aikol.iva have they gotten easier for u?! i just started and i'm struggling. idk how to improve
@littleflo to be honest i am still not very condifent about this question type. i am trying to join the live classes that target WSE subtype. maybe watching some live class recordings on this will help. and i also realized i cannot get stuck here, i have to keep moving on, so i will just keep coming back to this to review and drill while learning new question types.
Crying because how am I supposed to understand and find that in 1 min and 25 secs? #help
ughhhh i was gonna pick B but chose E cause i felt like i had seen that answer style before
or i should say but i ignored*
We saw the same answer style with the question about the runners stretching a few lessons ago. I chose E as well, but B looked attractive because i ignored that "increasingly widespread use of sunscreen" which i think indicates B
(E) almost had me in the first half I can't lie
That’s not fair. The basis of getting this question correct is praying that your assumption of the years are a certain amount. I was thinking when taking this question if it fits the timeline of 25 years i’d absolutely choose this answer. This is a question that should be looked at again because there are other questions that directly contradict the thought process of choosing B.
@Endritkasumaj ok but if you picked E you're assuming is less reasonable because belief doesn't make it true. That's why its wrong bro, doesn't the test get a bunch of doubt on some questions but yet they still remain, that means its been reviewed and they have their reasons for why its right.
I keep getting all of these wrong cries
Can you flag some practice questions that are similar to this right answer choice logic that we can drill? #help
ive gotten just about all of these wrong. I genuinely think this is just bs because it shouldnt be this hard to understand how to weaken and stretghen things