A. Correct, because if it were true that there were negative consequences behind avoiding dairy foods, then the conclusion that the author drew about increasing the probability of maintaining good health would be less likely to be true, as those negative consequences may impact health
B. author never claims this is the ONLY way
C. author never makes any claim as to what we should or shouldn’t do, just that doing X will increase the probability of Y consequence
D. all of the evidence is relevant
E. author never guarantees anything to occur, only makes probability statements
It feels like a completely unwarranted assumption that avoidance of dairy may cause negative health effects. How would we have made that guess without appealing to outside knowledge (which is the last thing we ought to do on the LSAT)?
@JohnDemmler Lol right? I'm dying for an explanation. This is the one and only question that I still disagree with the correct answer out of 100s and 100s of drills. It's throwing me off for the entire test, knowing that we may be expected to just make such a massive assumption from knowledge outside of the passage.
The importance I got from this question to keep in mind for future causal logic flawed questions is that this argument is flawed in that it presumes based on the only "con/negative effect of dairy" (heart disease increase from dairy) to be the ONLY EFFECT of dairy consumption. But it overlooks the other causal pathway effects that dairy can cause, others which are positive and beneficial.
Which is why the argument is flawed in that it overlooks that eventhough the consumption dairy might have the negative effect of heart disease, the prevention of dairy consumption will bring negative effects, because ITS OTHER EFFECTS which are positive are then removed from consumption such as calcium and other nutrients. But this is the flaw because the stimulus singled out on this particular effect and didn't consider the others.
It's the conclusion "maintaining good health" that makes A the correct answer. If you were focused on just heart disease and avoiding fat--then B may have trapped you like I was.
so i immediately knocked a from the options due to it using the term "eliminated" as apposed to just avoiding or decreasing consumption. avoiding doesnt neccesarily imply a total elimination...so thats where my logic screwed up
does any one else practice rephrasing "assumes, without warrant..." that does not have a negative word in the sentence into a "fails to consider.. "?' sentence
like this one is a "fails to consider.." with no negative terms and the "assumes, without warrant.." has negative term 'will not'
What helped me out with this question was the word health. By saying that you can maintain good health if you avoid dairy foods, it completely negates the possibility that your health can decrease by not eating dairy foods. When I saw the word health in reference to heart disease, I immediately saw that fault.
How do you know when to take away the negative? I mapped this as:
avoid dairy->less likely to eat fat->avoid heart disease
(all negative as in the stimulus). I got it wrong BTW. Why do you take the negative of the negative or ignore the negative and how do you know when to do that?
I think you do whatever makes it more clear what the argument is saying. If there are a bunch of negatives, it may be easier to flip things around. Especially here where it says there is an increase the the probability of avoiding heart disease. That is confusing language; it's easier to understand it as consuming dairy leads to increased chance of heart disease.
Starting to get really confident with this LSAT. Let me explain two years ago when I first started studying for the LSAT and then stopped I would get confident when I got the answer correct. Now I am starting to get really confident not just because I got the answer correct. But also because I am able to accurately eliminate wrong answers and explain why I got the right answer correct, and why the wrong answers are wrong. Also because im really understanding the stimulus, and I am really starting to see the patterns the test writers do in the stimulus and the wrong answers choices!!! Anyone else feel the same way!!!
Me too Cameron! I have been half-heatedly studying the lsat for years, and would just bounce between feeling good and bad whenever I studied. But now I feel like I am starting to really understand why I get questions right, and then also why I get them wrong. It is exciting!
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
118 comments
yessss, Finally!!
A. Correct, because if it were true that there were negative consequences behind avoiding dairy foods, then the conclusion that the author drew about increasing the probability of maintaining good health would be less likely to be true, as those negative consequences may impact health
B. author never claims this is the ONLY way
C. author never makes any claim as to what we should or shouldn’t do, just that doing X will increase the probability of Y consequence
D. all of the evidence is relevant
E. author never guarantees anything to occur, only makes probability statements
yuuuppppppp
Why do we care about dairy's outside consequences, good or bad? There just didn't feel like a good answer for this one
Me: *reads AC A* "ha ok so its definitely not that one!" ._.
It feels like a completely unwarranted assumption that avoidance of dairy may cause negative health effects. How would we have made that guess without appealing to outside knowledge (which is the last thing we ought to do on the LSAT)?
@MacSelesnick Yeah exactly, this question is a lot of baloney
@JohnDemmler Lol right? I'm dying for an explanation. This is the one and only question that I still disagree with the correct answer out of 100s and 100s of drills. It's throwing me off for the entire test, knowing that we may be expected to just make such a massive assumption from knowledge outside of the passage.
@MacSelesnick Same exact thought
Love sitting between 2 answers and both of them end up incorrect haha
@GavinMartin17 That was me this question.
The importance I got from this question to keep in mind for future causal logic flawed questions is that this argument is flawed in that it presumes based on the only "con/negative effect of dairy" (heart disease increase from dairy) to be the ONLY EFFECT of dairy consumption. But it overlooks the other causal pathway effects that dairy can cause, others which are positive and beneficial.
Which is why the argument is flawed in that it overlooks that eventhough the consumption dairy might have the negative effect of heart disease, the prevention of dairy consumption will bring negative effects, because ITS OTHER EFFECTS which are positive are then removed from consumption such as calcium and other nutrients. But this is the flaw because the stimulus singled out on this particular effect and didn't consider the others.
i keep choosing the right answer and then changing my mind last minute im annoyed
It's the conclusion "maintaining good health" that makes A the correct answer. If you were focused on just heart disease and avoiding fat--then B may have trapped you like I was.
am i the only one that feels like his reasoning behind this was a reaching?
@watersam10151992 absolutely. Feels like a completely unwarranted assumption that avoidance of dairy may cause negative health effects.
i keep overthinking these and choose the right answers on blind review sigh
Praying I don't break my streak 🤲🏼 i need this
so i immediately knocked a from the options due to it using the term "eliminated" as apposed to just avoiding or decreasing consumption. avoiding doesnt neccesarily imply a total elimination...so thats where my logic screwed up
@RachaelFields I did the same exact thing!
does any one else practice rephrasing "assumes, without warrant..." that does not have a negative word in the sentence into a "fails to consider.. "?' sentence
like this one is a "fails to consider.." with no negative terms and the "assumes, without warrant.." has negative term 'will not'
bruh
bro wat
my reaction too
What helped me out with this question was the word health. By saying that you can maintain good health if you avoid dairy foods, it completely negates the possibility that your health can decrease by not eating dairy foods. When I saw the word health in reference to heart disease, I immediately saw that fault.
to me there is a lot of confusion between increase and decrease. Those are not the only two options (what about stay the same?).
How do you know when to take away the negative? I mapped this as:
avoid dairy->less likely to eat fat->avoid heart disease
(all negative as in the stimulus). I got it wrong BTW. Why do you take the negative of the negative or ignore the negative and how do you know when to do that?
I think you do whatever makes it more clear what the argument is saying. If there are a bunch of negatives, it may be easier to flip things around. Especially here where it says there is an increase the the probability of avoiding heart disease. That is confusing language; it's easier to understand it as consuming dairy leads to increased chance of heart disease.
Did you know it's possible to overthink LSAT questions?
Having just done the previous question, I got baited into choosing B
the difficulty level seems like BS. level 3's sometimes feel like level 5's and level 5's sometimes feel like level 2's.
Starting to get really confident with this LSAT. Let me explain two years ago when I first started studying for the LSAT and then stopped I would get confident when I got the answer correct. Now I am starting to get really confident not just because I got the answer correct. But also because I am able to accurately eliminate wrong answers and explain why I got the right answer correct, and why the wrong answers are wrong. Also because im really understanding the stimulus, and I am really starting to see the patterns the test writers do in the stimulus and the wrong answers choices!!! Anyone else feel the same way!!!
Me too Cameron! I have been half-heatedly studying the lsat for years, and would just bounce between feeling good and bad whenever I studied. But now I feel like I am starting to really understand why I get questions right, and then also why I get them wrong. It is exciting!
i suck at flawed questions lol