I spent an hour on this one question and I realized that any time the explanatory chain between A and C is broken by B not being related to A or C, that strengthens or weakens the argument.
@8M_M8 Can you describe what aspect of the question is still confusing to you? Which answer did you like, and why? Or, why do you not like the correct answer?
@Kevin_Lin So, in my opinion, I just felt like it was messy. For example, instead of starting off with what is a phenomenon, maybe mentioning from the beginning that this another form of an argument(how the stimulus will present itself, which is a causal relationship form), where the premise(s) is a phenomenon and conclusion is a hypothesis. And then giving an example and defining phenomenon and hypothesis. After that mentioning how the test makers try and bait us. And how we can beat them to it (alternative explanation, third factor, and reverse causality). I just felt it was messy (sequence), and maybe a more thorough explanation of this concept.
this is a question where the safest strategy to HELP the author's assumption (iron-rich diet = more chance of Parkinson's) is to ELIMINATE ALTERNATIVES.
so if we go back to the third-factor correlation and implement it into this scenario, someone could walk up to the author and go like "what if it's genetics? what if people WITH the genetic predisposition are just eating more iron?" and this would diminish the author's argument.
"Most people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson's disease have no more iron in their diets than people without the predisposition."
this answer basically says the levels of iron in both groups are the same. therefore, if someone did bring the third factor of genetics in, the author could say no, genetics is not correlated with iron levels. this doesn't prove the original assumption/hypothesis but we are not looking to prove, simply to strengthen, and that is what this answer does. we are lowering the chances of it being genetics which in turn, increases the chances of it being iron levels. i found that the answer is erasing the correlation between iron levels and genetics, which helped me understand it better.
Can someone please explain how "some people without houseplants have high-quality sleep" and "some people have houseplants but sleep poorly" have no effect on the argument in the example
@RejoiceAdewale Correlation is when 2 variables tend to move together. Causation is when one variable causes another. The houseplant and sleep example is a correlation. This doesn't mean that houseplants cause better sleep, but rather than on average, increases in houseplants tend move with increases in sleep quality.
Let me give you another example that makes more sense for me: increases in ice cream sales tend to move with increases in murder rates. Does this mean that ice cream sales cause murders? Absolutely not! Notice how I used the word cause in that sentence. The secret variable in temperature. As temperature increases, ice cream sales also increase and as temperature increases, people get more crazy and murder rates increase.
This shows that ice cream sales and murder rates are positively correlated, meaning that as one moves upwards, the other tends to move upwards as well not because one causes the other, but because they are "tied" to the same cause (temperature). Are there ice cream sales in the winter? yes. are there murders in the winter? also yes, but when the temperature increase, both of these variables tend to increase together.
Very silly way of understanding, but helped me. If we have 5 people in a study, and two of them have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson's, and we ensure all of them are consuming exactly the same amounts of iron (I put spinach to represent iron; spinach has iron, right?), then we can basically "cancel out" or ignore iron for the time being since it is controlled for/held constant. So, if we look at our sample of 5 people now, (including our two people with the genetic predisposition), and none of them are more likely than one another to develop Parkinsons, that means that genetic predisposition is not the cause of Parkinson's. This eliminates that possibility as an alternative explanation for what the cause of Parkinson's is in the stimulus; which strengthens the journalist's reasoning. I think the reason Answer Choice A is confusing is because you have to weaken genetics before you strengthen iron. I kept getting tripped up because I was thinking "Why isn't Answer A a weaken?" it actually DOES weaken, it just weakens something (genetics explanation) which we need to weaken in order to strengthen the journalist's argument.
I've had o watch the video several times to understand the explanation for choice A but here's what I think a lot of us are missing and why we're confused. We're supposed to account for the correlation between higher amounts of dietary iron and development of parkinsons, not account for the relationship between genetics and parkinsons.
An alternate explanation to "High dietary iron causes parkinsons" is "People who have a parkinsons predisposition happen to eat more iron", the iron could be correlated to parkinsons only because it's piggybacking off of the genetic predisposition.
Answer choice A eliminates that explanation because it tells us that people who are more likely to develop parkinsons DON'T eat extra iron. The iron/parkinsons correlation is independent of the genetics/parkinsons correlation.
Therefore, we can eliminate the alternate explanation of them being connected. This strengthens the journalists reasoning because there are fewer possible explanations for the phenomenon available now, so the journalist's hypothesis is a bit more likely overall.
That's the best way I can think to articulate it, I hope it helps someone.
@ripleyschultz Thank you for the explaination. I initially chose A. But I was not confident because I assumed A would strengthen if it said that those that have genetic disposition to Parkinson have more iron in their system (not diet) so limitng their iron intake would help reduce chances of getting parkinson. I felt using the word "in their diet" was trying to trap me.
I’ve watched the video explanation at least three times and read a few comments about why A is correct, but I still don’t understand why that is the case :(
@aikol.iva same, never felt this confused about a single question before. Hopefully after a few hours of practice we can come back here and it will all make sense.
@petvma it took me a second to understand this. the authors argument is already flawed because it denies alternative reasons for the correlation. we are basically trying to prove he is correct in his flawed reasoning. genetics is a valid third correlation between the iron intake and disease, therefore it would weaken his reasoning. Answer A takes that valid genetics reasoning and provides invalidity, thus strengthening the authors argument. i know that prob doesn't make much sense i'm still trying to grasp it myself im sorry!!
@aikol.iva i thought i would share my mind thoughts while doing this!
firstly, I quickly eliminated B,C, and E. Why? because the stimulus never once mentioned vegetarians, children/adolescents, or even people at the age of 50. I didn't choose D because in this case we know that there is correlation between iron rich diets and a disease and D doesn't really do anything in this case. It doesn't strengthen what the journalist is saying. In the case of A, we have that people with a genetic predisposition to PD have no more iron in their diets without the predisposition. Now, this does something unlike D where it is more of statement. We see that same comparison from the stimulus.
@aikol.iva So I struggled with it too but I think I came around. I believe the strengthening component of the answer is that it eliminates another route one could take to reach the conclusion about cause. In the question about small shoes, for example, the diaper argument is weakened by the fact that babies need shoes and diapers, which makes babies an alternate explanation for the phenomenon. In this case, when considering the hypothesis "iron intake causes PD," an alternate solution is "people with a predisposition to PD just happen to eat more iron, thus making the correlation non-causal." By eliminating this option, the causal hypothesis is strengthened by virtue of a competing causal hypothesis being eliminated. Hope this makes sense.
I understand how A technically strengthens the argument, I don't, however, understand why D wouldn't be a strengthener too. If iron in some foods is less easily absorbed by the body that other foods, i begin to assume (wrongfully so) that the meats and seafoods and other foods written by the journalist fall under the category of foods that easily flows iron into your system. Therefore, more iron would enter your system and give you Parkinson's. By cutting those foods out, you cut out the food that more easily put dangerous iron into your system to reduce your risk of contracting this disease. I know that might be a stretch but does anyone have clarifying thoughts about that?
@Amirahh24 "i begin to assume (wrongfully so) that the meats and seafoods and other foods written by the journalist fall under the category of foods that easily flows iron into your system."
Couldn't it be the other way (the foods mentioned are harder to absorb)? The other issue (not mentioned in the video) is that easier to absorb doesn't mean easy to absorb. So D could actually be saying very little; it's not actually suggesting people got a lot of iron through meat/fish etc.
If people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson's have the same or less iron in their diets than people without the predisposition, wouldn't that just prove that genetics is a factor and not the iron intake? I got it right because the other answers are very wrong and this ones questionable but I don't understand at all how that's a strengthener?
@JacobHelton in my mind: strengthening isnt about proving just making it more believable or eliminating alternatives. The argument was about food intake with high iron and reducing the intake making it less likely to develop Parkinson’s. If we equal out someone with the genetic predisposition with someone one without the predisposition, it then makes it more likely that high iron is the cause than genetics and that’s just a pinch of strengthening .
I shamefully admit to watching a video in which the original guy was no longer the one speaking. I take full responsibility for this ungraceful act and am prepared to face any consequences that may arise from it. As humanity has learned throughout history, society is constantly changing, and unfortunately I, too, became a victim of that change. Therefore, I humbly ask for your forgiveness, Original Guy. Please return to the other videos. I miss your voice, I miss the familiar flavor you brought to every explanation, and I miss the comfort of believing that, with your guidance, I might actually ace the LSAT someday.
I chose A purely because every other answer sounded unnecessary due to external information. The idea of vegetarians isn't stated in the passage (B), nor was children (C), or absorption (D), and neither people who are at age 50 (E). While I don't advocate for those to emulate my kind of thought process, I'm curious to hear if any other people did the same aside from actually deducing what is the correct answer/following what was instructed in the video.
@mpglover Whenever the explanation says "iron causes Parkinson's," you can interpret that as "dietary iron causes Parkinson's." Does that address this issue? Also, the argument assumes the iron intake in one's diet causes Parkinson's. This isn't explicitly stated, but it doesn't need to be. The author assumes this, and we can strengthen the argument by helping to protect this assumption from things that would undermine it.
56 comments
Unfortunately for Kevin... I like JY better. (both are great we still love you Kevin)
I chose b oh my dayss
I spent an hour on this one question and I realized that any time the explanatory chain between A and C is broken by B not being related to A or C, that strengthens or weakens the argument.
This explanation video was not the greatest.
@8M_M8 Can you describe what aspect of the question is still confusing to you? Which answer did you like, and why? Or, why do you not like the correct answer?
@Kevin_Lin So, in my opinion, I just felt like it was messy. For example, instead of starting off with what is a phenomenon, maybe mentioning from the beginning that this another form of an argument(how the stimulus will present itself, which is a causal relationship form), where the premise(s) is a phenomenon and conclusion is a hypothesis. And then giving an example and defining phenomenon and hypothesis. After that mentioning how the test makers try and bait us. And how we can beat them to it (alternative explanation, third factor, and reverse causality). I just felt it was messy (sequence), and maybe a more thorough explanation of this concept.
Im going to have to come back to this because it made no sense to me.
raise a (virtual) hand if this doesn't make an ounce of sense to you either!!! (I know I'll get it eventually but at the moment my head hurts lol)
@MaddisenNelson raising two hands here 😭
Gonna have to stop ya right there aliens absolutely did build the pyramids.
im starting to understand, I answered A) at first but i started second guessing myself, so then I went for D). chud move.
here's how i broke it down if this helps anyone:
this is a question where the safest strategy to HELP the author's assumption (iron-rich diet = more chance of Parkinson's) is to ELIMINATE ALTERNATIVES.
so if we go back to the third-factor correlation and implement it into this scenario, someone could walk up to the author and go like "what if it's genetics? what if people WITH the genetic predisposition are just eating more iron?" and this would diminish the author's argument.
"Most people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson's disease have no more iron in their diets than people without the predisposition."
this answer basically says the levels of iron in both groups are the same. therefore, if someone did bring the third factor of genetics in, the author could say no, genetics is not correlated with iron levels. this doesn't prove the original assumption/hypothesis but we are not looking to prove, simply to strengthen, and that is what this answer does. we are lowering the chances of it being genetics which in turn, increases the chances of it being iron levels. i found that the answer is erasing the correlation between iron levels and genetics, which helped me understand it better.
If I wasn't confused before, I definitely am after this video. Please help!!
[This comment was deleted.]
@chrisballx You got this! Don't give up!
@chrisballx you will get there, be patient and dont quit on yourself before you even start!!!
@chrisballx I feel the same way sometimes, but keep going. You will surprise yourself
Can someone please explain how "some people without houseplants have high-quality sleep" and "some people have houseplants but sleep poorly" have no effect on the argument in the example
@RejoiceAdewale Correlation is when 2 variables tend to move together. Causation is when one variable causes another. The houseplant and sleep example is a correlation. This doesn't mean that houseplants cause better sleep, but rather than on average, increases in houseplants tend move with increases in sleep quality.
Let me give you another example that makes more sense for me: increases in ice cream sales tend to move with increases in murder rates. Does this mean that ice cream sales cause murders? Absolutely not! Notice how I used the word cause in that sentence. The secret variable in temperature. As temperature increases, ice cream sales also increase and as temperature increases, people get more crazy and murder rates increase.
This shows that ice cream sales and murder rates are positively correlated, meaning that as one moves upwards, the other tends to move upwards as well not because one causes the other, but because they are "tied" to the same cause (temperature). Are there ice cream sales in the winter? yes. are there murders in the winter? also yes, but when the temperature increase, both of these variables tend to increase together.
Hope this helped!
@alexandra_slek It sure did. Thank you so much
if you want to see some funny spurious correlations, go to https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
I've had o watch the video several times to understand the explanation for choice A but here's what I think a lot of us are missing and why we're confused. We're supposed to account for the correlation between higher amounts of dietary iron and development of parkinsons, not account for the relationship between genetics and parkinsons.
An alternate explanation to "High dietary iron causes parkinsons" is "People who have a parkinsons predisposition happen to eat more iron", the iron could be correlated to parkinsons only because it's piggybacking off of the genetic predisposition.
Answer choice A eliminates that explanation because it tells us that people who are more likely to develop parkinsons DON'T eat extra iron. The iron/parkinsons correlation is independent of the genetics/parkinsons correlation.
Therefore, we can eliminate the alternate explanation of them being connected. This strengthens the journalists reasoning because there are fewer possible explanations for the phenomenon available now, so the journalist's hypothesis is a bit more likely overall.
That's the best way I can think to articulate it, I hope it helps someone.
@ripleyschultz Thank you for the explaination. I initially chose A. But I was not confident because I assumed A would strengthen if it said that those that have genetic disposition to Parkinson have more iron in their system (not diet) so limitng their iron intake would help reduce chances of getting parkinson. I felt using the word "in their diet" was trying to trap me.
I don't really get why it's A instead of C.
It's starting to click!
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend the reasoning. Hope not all are like this. Nothing more to say. good luck guys
I’ve watched the video explanation at least three times and read a few comments about why A is correct, but I still don’t understand why that is the case :(
@aikol.iva same, never felt this confused about a single question before. Hopefully after a few hours of practice we can come back here and it will all make sense.
@petvma it took me a second to understand this. the authors argument is already flawed because it denies alternative reasons for the correlation. we are basically trying to prove he is correct in his flawed reasoning. genetics is a valid third correlation between the iron intake and disease, therefore it would weaken his reasoning. Answer A takes that valid genetics reasoning and provides invalidity, thus strengthening the authors argument. i know that prob doesn't make much sense i'm still trying to grasp it myself im sorry!!
@sarbear23 in other words, answer A strips the genetics correlation and proves its invalid, which strengthens the authors reasoning
@aikol.iva i thought i would share my mind thoughts while doing this!
firstly, I quickly eliminated B,C, and E. Why? because the stimulus never once mentioned vegetarians, children/adolescents, or even people at the age of 50. I didn't choose D because in this case we know that there is correlation between iron rich diets and a disease and D doesn't really do anything in this case. It doesn't strengthen what the journalist is saying. In the case of A, we have that people with a genetic predisposition to PD have no more iron in their diets without the predisposition. Now, this does something unlike D where it is more of statement. We see that same comparison from the stimulus.
@aikol.iva So I struggled with it too but I think I came around. I believe the strengthening component of the answer is that it eliminates another route one could take to reach the conclusion about cause. In the question about small shoes, for example, the diaper argument is weakened by the fact that babies need shoes and diapers, which makes babies an alternate explanation for the phenomenon. In this case, when considering the hypothesis "iron intake causes PD," an alternate solution is "people with a predisposition to PD just happen to eat more iron, thus making the correlation non-causal." By eliminating this option, the causal hypothesis is strengthened by virtue of a competing causal hypothesis being eliminated. Hope this makes sense.
I understand how A technically strengthens the argument, I don't, however, understand why D wouldn't be a strengthener too. If iron in some foods is less easily absorbed by the body that other foods, i begin to assume (wrongfully so) that the meats and seafoods and other foods written by the journalist fall under the category of foods that easily flows iron into your system. Therefore, more iron would enter your system and give you Parkinson's. By cutting those foods out, you cut out the food that more easily put dangerous iron into your system to reduce your risk of contracting this disease. I know that might be a stretch but does anyone have clarifying thoughts about that?
@Amirahh24 "i begin to assume (wrongfully so) that the meats and seafoods and other foods written by the journalist fall under the category of foods that easily flows iron into your system."
Couldn't it be the other way (the foods mentioned are harder to absorb)? The other issue (not mentioned in the video) is that easier to absorb doesn't mean easy to absorb. So D could actually be saying very little; it's not actually suggesting people got a lot of iron through meat/fish etc.
@Kevin_Lin Ah, that is true. So the ambiguity of that answer is why I should not choose it. Thank you so much for your response. I appreciate it.
Yeah this whole concept went completely over my head so that's a bummer
@Mowers37 You can do it!! :)
@Mowers37 It takes time, you'll get it!
If people who have a genetic predisposition to Parkinson's have the same or less iron in their diets than people without the predisposition, wouldn't that just prove that genetics is a factor and not the iron intake? I got it right because the other answers are very wrong and this ones questionable but I don't understand at all how that's a strengthener?
@JacobHelton in my mind: strengthening isnt about proving just making it more believable or eliminating alternatives. The argument was about food intake with high iron and reducing the intake making it less likely to develop Parkinson’s. If we equal out someone with the genetic predisposition with someone one without the predisposition, it then makes it more likely that high iron is the cause than genetics and that’s just a pinch of strengthening .
@Cerabell Thank you! This explanation finally got me to understand why A was right instead of why the others were wrong
@StephanieMcFann 💚 glad that was helpful
@Cerabell super helpful, TY!
I shamefully admit to watching a video in which the original guy was no longer the one speaking. I take full responsibility for this ungraceful act and am prepared to face any consequences that may arise from it. As humanity has learned throughout history, society is constantly changing, and unfortunately I, too, became a victim of that change. Therefore, I humbly ask for your forgiveness, Original Guy. Please return to the other videos. I miss your voice, I miss the familiar flavor you brought to every explanation, and I miss the comfort of believing that, with your guidance, I might actually ace the LSAT someday.
I chose A purely because every other answer sounded unnecessary due to external information. The idea of vegetarians isn't stated in the passage (B), nor was children (C), or absorption (D), and neither people who are at age 50 (E). While I don't advocate for those to emulate my kind of thought process, I'm curious to hear if any other people did the same aside from actually deducing what is the correct answer/following what was instructed in the video.
[This comment was deleted.]
@mpglover Whenever the explanation says "iron causes Parkinson's," you can interpret that as "dietary iron causes Parkinson's." Does that address this issue? Also, the argument assumes the iron intake in one's diet causes Parkinson's. This isn't explicitly stated, but it doesn't need to be. The author assumes this, and we can strengthen the argument by helping to protect this assumption from things that would undermine it.