I chose E but definitely went back and forth between A and E. I didn't have the analysis on A like the video had, except for the main criticism that A is just another correlation that doesn't provide much support directly to the hypothesis. It's a correlation that can be added on to the correlation between family size and allergy development provided in the premises-phenomenon. However, the question is asking which one of the answer supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis focuses on the variable of exposure to germs during infancy. Answer E most directly speaks to the hypothesis-conclusion, as the condition of a child being put in daycare before age 1 necessarily means being exposed to way more germs in infancy. The result of E confirms the hypothesis-conclusion's prediction of these germ-exposed infants developing less allergies.
The stimulus baits you to focus on the size of the families, but if you pay attention to the last sentence, the hypothesis-conclusion, you see that the answer is going to most likely talk about children's exposure to germs (and any conditions that will contribute to that).
Conclusion: children in large families (youngest) = fewer allergies than kids in small families
Why (support): exposure to germs makes people less likely to develop allergies
Assumption (when looking for answer): being exposed to many people develops resistance to developing allergies
AC E says that if children (small families) enter day care before age one, you're less likely to develop allergies than if you enter later --> Exactly, that's why children in large families have fewer allergies (being exposed to many people allows kids to develop resistance and not get the allergies later on) [applicable to both small families and large families]
As a mom of 4 young kids, I got this one right haha.
And can also confirm from the text, "[Younger children] will be exposed to more germs if they are in a large family as opposed to a small family. This seems quite reasonable. Children are gross. The more the grosser. That is a true fact."
Little germ factories for sure, but also little sweeties.
This question took me 4 minutes but I got it right... Answer Choice E was difficult to pinpoint because at first glance, it seemingly has nothing to do with the stim, but after re-reading it multiple times, you can make the reasonable assumption that children who go to day care are more exposed to germs than children who do not go to day care. Therefore, if a child goes to day care at age one, they are exposed to germs, which in turn makes them less likely to develop allergies compared to the children who attend day care at an older age, aka, not infant age. This supports the researcher's claim that exposure to germs during infancy, or age 1, makes people less likely to develop allergies.
I really don't like the idea of A.) being wrong because it still leaves room for small families being smaller or Large Families becoming smaller large families or small families. The stimulus draws a correlation between family size and likelihood of allergies. It doesn't just draw a simple distinction between two family types (small and large) and says "okay. you've now entered into a nebulous definition of a small family - this is now sufficient to being prone to allergies".
This is a correlative relationship not a logical relationship.
We're approaching this like the latter by eliminating answer A.) on the basis of not knowing if family sizes in this country are small or still large after the average decline in family size.
Small Family -> Prone to Allergies
/Prone to Allergies -> /Small Family
This is not an appropriate approach to relationships of a correlative nature.
Additionally, in the explanation video, EY points out that the stimulus only points out the correlation found in infants, and answer choice A.) highlights incidents of allergies in general, but neglects incidents in infants. However, this is false. The hypothesis in the stimulus specifically mentions that exposure during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies, not just infants. This led me to pick answer choice A.) due to the fact that answer choice E.) refers only to allergies in children less than age one and children not less than one.
Answer choice E.) requires us to assume that:
Most day cares are sufficiently large enough of a pool of children to mimic the aspects of a larger family on infants.
The children being sent to daycare after infancy are being sent to daycares of roughly equal size to the ones being sent during infancy.
Children spend enough time in day care to be exposed to the full breadth of germs as children living full time with other children are.
We fully understand the age range that is classified as infancy (1 year < less).
The Small families that sent their kids to day care after infancy, were of equal "small" size to the ones that sent them during infancy. (The same reason we eliminated A.).
Daycares would allow the same sanitation standards of a larger family (that is to say not sanitary enough causing the mitigation of allergies).
Granted, the day care scenario creates a rough experiment between two samples of small families, however Answer choice A.) compares families at one or more earlier points in time and families at one or more later points in time. Incidents of allergies at earlier points were less prevalent when families were larger (not definitively "large" or "small").
Just because we're taught to create the perfect experiment by comparing two similar or identical sample sets, doesn't preclude that charting an x (independent) variable (time) and a y variable (size of family) overlaid by the prevalence of allergies is a potentially superior method of proving this point. Not in spite of the century of tracked data, but especially because of the large breadth of time to track these changes. That is, if the span of the study was only over the course of a year, this would critically weaken A.)
I got it right but B tripped me up bc exposure to allergens in infancy (or at least peanuts lol) can reduce your chance of developing the allergy. In that case, B could kind of be supporting the stimulus because it would be saying that even though children in small families were less likely to have allergies due to being exposed to allergens young, children in large families were still less likely to develop allergies bc of exposure to germs.
it took me a while to get this one but the way i am doing it is only looking at the last sentence and then saying what supports just this last sentence - idk if that will always work tho
I chose E over A, but probably for the wrong reasons. I fell for essentially all of A's assumption traps, so I thought it was a spectrum of support question with two strong supports, and I had to pick the stronger of the two. I picked E because I thought it overshot the hypothesis; essentially, treating daycares as massive families with like 20 kids in comparison to a large family with like five kids. Bittersweet lmao.
I eliminated A because I thought it made a naive assumption that the amount of kids was the only thing that made a family big or little. Family size is also dependent on aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc., and sometimes all of these people live under one roof. Am I wrong for believing this was a naive assumption? I don't want to make a habit out of this if I am incorrect.
omg it felt like A and E were saying the exact same thing but I anchored myself to the stimulus and had to isolate the conclusion to get the right answer
The answer makes sense, I was between A and E like many others. I eliminated E thinking it was baiting me into thinking that all daycares were traditional. I was thinking about some small, in house daycare services lol. silly, silly
i was between A and E , like most of the others in the chat, but i realized that A answered the first part of the stimulus, but it was not the hypothesis. so with POE i went to E and was like up this makes sense.
Not going to lie, I was reading over E as the last question during blind review and thought NVM answer A is stronger …. Grrrrrrr taking the L here chat..
picking the wrong answer and realizing after it was because you missed ONE word in the correct answer is a different kind of pain rippp for some reason, I thought E was saying "more likely" and not "less likely" which is why I chose A...
I too was between A and E until I remembered that I'm strengthening the hypothesis which is "exposure to germs during infancy"(Causation) and A is referring to the premise not the conclusion.
I am having trouble determining when am I safe to use commonsense from life in LSAT right now? I like E but I didn't choose it because I don't know if I could safely assume that Daycare is full of germs on LSAT (I certainly do believe that in real life tho.) Could someone please help me? I have been getting questions wrong for this very reason.
I just need some advice a lot of the times I get the question wrong because I think I rushed the reading. "They hypothesize that exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies." I skim over small words like infancy even though I understood the argument to be that "exposure during infancy makes them less likely to develop allergies" Basically I feel like I just have to slow down when im reading any advice .
Pulled the trigger too fast on this one and now I had to pay. For shame.
21
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!
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!
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.
105 comments
I chose E but definitely went back and forth between A and E. I didn't have the analysis on A like the video had, except for the main criticism that A is just another correlation that doesn't provide much support directly to the hypothesis. It's a correlation that can be added on to the correlation between family size and allergy development provided in the premises-phenomenon. However, the question is asking which one of the answer supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis focuses on the variable of exposure to germs during infancy. Answer E most directly speaks to the hypothesis-conclusion, as the condition of a child being put in daycare before age 1 necessarily means being exposed to way more germs in infancy. The result of E confirms the hypothesis-conclusion's prediction of these germ-exposed infants developing less allergies.
The stimulus baits you to focus on the size of the families, but if you pay attention to the last sentence, the hypothesis-conclusion, you see that the answer is going to most likely talk about children's exposure to germs (and any conditions that will contribute to that).
Something inside me clicked when you said " who is getting these allergies?" for A. Very good explanation.
Conclusion: children in large families (youngest) = fewer allergies than kids in small families
Why (support): exposure to germs makes people less likely to develop allergies
Assumption (when looking for answer): being exposed to many people develops resistance to developing allergies
AC E says that if children (small families) enter day care before age one, you're less likely to develop allergies than if you enter later --> Exactly, that's why children in large families have fewer allergies (being exposed to many people allows kids to develop resistance and not get the allergies later on) [applicable to both small families and large families]
As a mom of 4 young kids, I got this one right haha.
And can also confirm from the text, "[Younger children] will be exposed to more germs if they are in a large family as opposed to a small family. This seems quite reasonable. Children are gross. The more the grosser. That is a true fact."
Little germ factories for sure, but also little sweeties.
Did anybody else confuse infancy with pregnancy? Just wondering because I would've picked E instead of A if i didn't mix it up for myself
This question took me 4 minutes but I got it right... Answer Choice E was difficult to pinpoint because at first glance, it seemingly has nothing to do with the stim, but after re-reading it multiple times, you can make the reasonable assumption that children who go to day care are more exposed to germs than children who do not go to day care. Therefore, if a child goes to day care at age one, they are exposed to germs, which in turn makes them less likely to develop allergies compared to the children who attend day care at an older age, aka, not infant age. This supports the researcher's claim that exposure to germs during infancy, or age 1, makes people less likely to develop allergies.
On the spectrum A seems to be in the middle left towards strengthening.
If E didnt exist, it seems like A would be the right answer.
I really don't like the idea of A.) being wrong because it still leaves room for small families being smaller or Large Families becoming smaller large families or small families. The stimulus draws a correlation between family size and likelihood of allergies. It doesn't just draw a simple distinction between two family types (small and large) and says "okay. you've now entered into a nebulous definition of a small family - this is now sufficient to being prone to allergies".
This is a correlative relationship not a logical relationship.
We're approaching this like the latter by eliminating answer A.) on the basis of not knowing if family sizes in this country are small or still large after the average decline in family size.
Small Family -> Prone to Allergies
/Prone to Allergies -> /Small Family
This is not an appropriate approach to relationships of a correlative nature.
Additionally, in the explanation video, EY points out that the stimulus only points out the correlation found in infants, and answer choice A.) highlights incidents of allergies in general, but neglects incidents in infants. However, this is false. The hypothesis in the stimulus specifically mentions that exposure during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies, not just infants. This led me to pick answer choice A.) due to the fact that answer choice E.) refers only to allergies in children less than age one and children not less than one.
Answer choice E.) requires us to assume that:
Most day cares are sufficiently large enough of a pool of children to mimic the aspects of a larger family on infants.
The children being sent to daycare after infancy are being sent to daycares of roughly equal size to the ones being sent during infancy.
Children spend enough time in day care to be exposed to the full breadth of germs as children living full time with other children are.
We fully understand the age range that is classified as infancy (1 year < less).
The Small families that sent their kids to day care after infancy, were of equal "small" size to the ones that sent them during infancy. (The same reason we eliminated A.).
Daycares would allow the same sanitation standards of a larger family (that is to say not sanitary enough causing the mitigation of allergies).
Granted, the day care scenario creates a rough experiment between two samples of small families, however Answer choice A.) compares families at one or more earlier points in time and families at one or more later points in time. Incidents of allergies at earlier points were less prevalent when families were larger (not definitively "large" or "small").
Just because we're taught to create the perfect experiment by comparing two similar or identical sample sets, doesn't preclude that charting an x (independent) variable (time) and a y variable (size of family) overlaid by the prevalence of allergies is a potentially superior method of proving this point. Not in spite of the century of tracked data, but especially because of the large breadth of time to track these changes. That is, if the span of the study was only over the course of a year, this would critically weaken A.)
I got it right but B tripped me up bc exposure to allergens in infancy (or at least peanuts lol) can reduce your chance of developing the allergy. In that case, B could kind of be supporting the stimulus because it would be saying that even though children in small families were less likely to have allergies due to being exposed to allergens young, children in large families were still less likely to develop allergies bc of exposure to germs.
it took me a while to get this one but the way i am doing it is only looking at the last sentence and then saying what supports just this last sentence - idk if that will always work tho
I chose E over A, but probably for the wrong reasons. I fell for essentially all of A's assumption traps, so I thought it was a spectrum of support question with two strong supports, and I had to pick the stronger of the two. I picked E because I thought it overshot the hypothesis; essentially, treating daycares as massive families with like 20 kids in comparison to a large family with like five kids. Bittersweet lmao.
I eliminated A because I thought it made a naive assumption that the amount of kids was the only thing that made a family big or little. Family size is also dependent on aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc., and sometimes all of these people live under one roof. Am I wrong for believing this was a naive assumption? I don't want to make a habit out of this if I am incorrect.
omg it felt like A and E were saying the exact same thing but I anchored myself to the stimulus and had to isolate the conclusion to get the right answer
The answer makes sense, I was between A and E like many others. I eliminated E thinking it was baiting me into thinking that all daycares were traditional. I was thinking about some small, in house daycare services lol. silly, silly
Are weaken questions just as common as strengthen questions on average? or are there more of one then the other usually?
i was between A and E , like most of the others in the chat, but i realized that A answered the first part of the stimulus, but it was not the hypothesis. so with POE i went to E and was like up this makes sense.
FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT!!!
Not going to lie, I was reading over E as the last question during blind review and thought NVM answer A is stronger …. Grrrrrrr taking the L here chat..
picking the wrong answer and realizing after it was because you missed ONE word in the correct answer is a different kind of pain rippp for some reason, I thought E was saying "more likely" and not "less likely" which is why I chose A...
I too was between A and E until I remembered that I'm strengthening the hypothesis which is "exposure to germs during infancy"(Causation) and A is referring to the premise not the conclusion.
I am having trouble determining when am I safe to use commonsense from life in LSAT right now? I like E but I didn't choose it because I don't know if I could safely assume that Daycare is full of germs on LSAT (I certainly do believe that in real life tho.) Could someone please help me? I have been getting questions wrong for this very reason.
Was between A and E and fell for A
#feedback HELP everyone.
I just need some advice a lot of the times I get the question wrong because I think I rushed the reading. "They hypothesize that exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies." I skim over small words like infancy even though I understood the argument to be that "exposure during infancy makes them less likely to develop allergies" Basically I feel like I just have to slow down when im reading any advice .
GIMME THAT BLIND REVIEW BABY
Pulled the trigger too fast on this one and now I had to pay. For shame.