I think i understand it now. Choice A is worded in a difficult way. It’s basically saying people with the genetic predisposition have the SAME amount of iron in their diets as people without the predisposition. So therefore we can rule out that any genetic factors are the cause of the disease. This doesnt tell us too much about iron but it does let us know that its not a genetic or other factor causing Parkinson’s so it therefore strengthens the argument.
@TekenaAbere furthermore eating the same amount of iron doesn’t take away from the claim that eating less can reduce the chance of getting the disease.
If anyone can give an explanation on end-of-the-video question, let me know! Got the question at the end correct, but by eliminating other answers and seeing that one might have an impact. The logic isn't clear to me, why it strengthens though. If people who are more prone to parkinson's have the same iron intake as people who are not, doesn't that suggest that iron isn't correlated to Parkinson's, but rather the genetic predisposition?
@ArielleSambolin I'm still a bit fuzzy on the logic, but I did a deep dive into it, and I think its because if you negate the claim then it means people with parkinson gene, not Parkinson's itself took more iron then iron could be the cause, so we are denying that claim which strengthens. Why? Because if ALL people have same iron intake, then genetics would not be the cause since they do not have parkinson's they're just "prone to it." (Remember the "genetics" s an alternative cause since argument says Iron is the cause, but this answer choice is talking about Parkinson's gene. and our hypothesis is about parkinson's).
To Summarize: We are denying an alternative explanation, when originally looking at the question i thought likeliness to develop Parkinson's and genetic predisposition are the same, but having genetic predisposition isn't more likely to cause parkinson's as choice A denies it.
I hope this cleared it up even a bit for you, I'm still confused too, but I see the string of logic behind it more, if this helps you figure it out and it clicks please free to share since I'm still confused too!
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez I'm still a bit fuzzy on the logic, but I did a deep dive into it, and I think its because if you negate the claim then it means people with parkinson gene, not Parkinson's itself took more iron then iron could be the cause, so we are denying that claim which strengthens. Why? Because if ALL people have same iron intake, then genetics would not be the cause since they do not have parkinson's they're just "prone to it." (Remember the "genetics" s an alternative cause since argument says Iron is the cause, but this answer choice is talking about Parkinson's gene. and our hypothesis is about parkinson's).
To Summarize: We are denying an alternative explanation, when originally looking at the question i thought likeliness to develop Parkinson's and genetic predisposition are the same, but having genetic predisposition isn't more likely to cause parkinson's as choice A denies it.
I hope this cleared it up even a bit for you, I'm still confused too, but I see the string of logic behind it more, if this helps you figure it out and it clicks please free to share since I'm still confused too!
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.
8 comments
thank you
I think i understand it now. Choice A is worded in a difficult way. It’s basically saying people with the genetic predisposition have the SAME amount of iron in their diets as people without the predisposition. So therefore we can rule out that any genetic factors are the cause of the disease. This doesnt tell us too much about iron but it does let us know that its not a genetic or other factor causing Parkinson’s so it therefore strengthens the argument.
@TekenaAbere furthermore eating the same amount of iron doesn’t take away from the claim that eating less can reduce the chance of getting the disease.
If anyone can give an explanation on end-of-the-video question, let me know! Got the question at the end correct, but by eliminating other answers and seeing that one might have an impact. The logic isn't clear to me, why it strengthens though. If people who are more prone to parkinson's have the same iron intake as people who are not, doesn't that suggest that iron isn't correlated to Parkinson's, but rather the genetic predisposition?
@Andreyd0925 I had the same thought ;/
@Andreyd0925 i also had the same line of thinking and am still confused :(
@ArielleSambolin I'm still a bit fuzzy on the logic, but I did a deep dive into it, and I think its because if you negate the claim then it means people with parkinson gene, not Parkinson's itself took more iron then iron could be the cause, so we are denying that claim which strengthens. Why? Because if ALL people have same iron intake, then genetics would not be the cause since they do not have parkinson's they're just "prone to it." (Remember the "genetics" s an alternative cause since argument says Iron is the cause, but this answer choice is talking about Parkinson's gene. and our hypothesis is about parkinson's).
To Summarize: We are denying an alternative explanation, when originally looking at the question i thought likeliness to develop Parkinson's and genetic predisposition are the same, but having genetic predisposition isn't more likely to cause parkinson's as choice A denies it.
I hope this cleared it up even a bit for you, I'm still confused too, but I see the string of logic behind it more, if this helps you figure it out and it clicks please free to share since I'm still confused too!
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez I'm still a bit fuzzy on the logic, but I did a deep dive into it, and I think its because if you negate the claim then it means people with parkinson gene, not Parkinson's itself took more iron then iron could be the cause, so we are denying that claim which strengthens. Why? Because if ALL people have same iron intake, then genetics would not be the cause since they do not have parkinson's they're just "prone to it." (Remember the "genetics" s an alternative cause since argument says Iron is the cause, but this answer choice is talking about Parkinson's gene. and our hypothesis is about parkinson's).
To Summarize: We are denying an alternative explanation, when originally looking at the question i thought likeliness to develop Parkinson's and genetic predisposition are the same, but having genetic predisposition isn't more likely to cause parkinson's as choice A denies it.
I hope this cleared it up even a bit for you, I'm still confused too, but I see the string of logic behind it more, if this helps you figure it out and it clicks please free to share since I'm still confused too!