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.
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.
@aviinatt Yes - I remained confused until this explanation. Thank you! I understand the correlation, I understood the argument to dismantle, but I am having a hard time with the answer choices. I interpreted A if people who are genetically more likely have the same iron as people who don't, then iron is neutral at best. But I get now we're saying A wins because we're removing one possible alternative and that is good enough to strengthen.
@aviinatt I was really confused with this one and your explanation really helped me understand, even if only a little, why A is the correct choice. When you view it as 'makes genetics the less likely factor and iron levels the possible cause' it makes way more sense. Thank you so so so much! I hope you do/did amazing on the LSAT!! :)
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 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.
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 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.
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!
a thought i had in regards to many of the comments left here: i think a good way to think about it that has helped me improve is that 4 of these answers are explicitly wrong or explicitly and thus 1 is right. that's essentially how the justification works in this video, but since the right answer is also the first one in the list, it can be difficult to see this process at hand. internalizing that sentiment has better helped me critically approach these types of questions than anything else. for example, when i look at B: i know this absolutely isn't the answer because how could this possibly strengthen the argument? this is telling me that lots of people consume just as much iron and do not get parkinson's: that virtually does the opposite of strengthening my argument in any capacity, so i move on. i was able to do this to C, D, and E as well. it has helped me immensely to be skeptical of the answers and face each question with the mindset that 4 of these answers are simply incorrect and i am here to discard them. i hope this tip helps someone.
this actually made sense. when ive been answering these types of questions, I think i;ve been trying to find the answer that proves the author's point to be true, not just strengthens their argument
we aren't trying to make the argument true, just make the author look better
84 comments
@Amelia_D 7sage should pay some of the commentators for these alternative explanations lol
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.
@aviinatt This ^^ explanation made way more sense than the one in the video. Thank you!!
@aviinatt Yes - I remained confused until this explanation. Thank you! I understand the correlation, I understood the argument to dismantle, but I am having a hard time with the answer choices. I interpreted A if people who are genetically more likely have the same iron as people who don't, then iron is neutral at best. But I get now we're saying A wins because we're removing one possible alternative and that is good enough to strengthen.
@aviinatt Beautiful explanation
@aviinatt I was really confused with this one and your explanation really helped me understand, even if only a little, why A is the correct choice. When you view it as 'makes genetics the less likely factor and iron levels the possible cause' it makes way more sense. Thank you so so so much! I hope you do/did amazing on the LSAT!! :)
If I wasn't confused before, I definitely am after this video. Please help!!
@KimberlynHand What's confusing you??
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend the reasoning. Hope not all are like this. Nothing more to say. good luck guys
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!
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 😭
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.
@TekenaAbere this was so incredibly helpful thank you
im starting to understand, I answered A) at first but i started second guessing myself, so then I went for D). chud move.
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!!
@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 chose b oh my dayss
Gonna have to stop ya right there aliens absolutely did build the pyramids.
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!
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.
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!
I think this video made a lot of sense. Sadly, I got the final question wrong, because I was torn between A and D. I see the error of my ways
a thought i had in regards to many of the comments left here: i think a good way to think about it that has helped me improve is that 4 of these answers are explicitly wrong or explicitly and thus 1 is right. that's essentially how the justification works in this video, but since the right answer is also the first one in the list, it can be difficult to see this process at hand. internalizing that sentiment has better helped me critically approach these types of questions than anything else. for example, when i look at B: i know this absolutely isn't the answer because how could this possibly strengthen the argument? this is telling me that lots of people consume just as much iron and do not get parkinson's: that virtually does the opposite of strengthening my argument in any capacity, so i move on. i was able to do this to C, D, and E as well. it has helped me immensely to be skeptical of the answers and face each question with the mindset that 4 of these answers are simply incorrect and i am here to discard them. i hope this tip helps someone.
[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
Im going to have to come back to this because it made no sense to me.
I’ve gained 10 pounds. - phenomenon
This must be due to me stress eating while studying for the LSAT - proposed causal statement
Weaken the argument-
Aliens have been secretly adding sticks of butter to my smoothies
strengthen the argument -
Aliens have not been secretly adding sticks of butter to my smoothies
@LorynAlston I giggled
im so confused on why A is right
magine:
Every house that catches fire has candles.
Does that mean candles caused the fires?
Maybe.
But another possibility is:
The houses all had faulty wiring.
Faulty wiring caused the fires, and people with old houses also happened to use candles.
Now suppose someone proves:
Houses with faulty wiring do not use candles any more than other houses.
Now faulty wiring is less likely to explain the connection.
So candles become more plausible as the cause.
this actually made sense. when ive been answering these types of questions, I think i;ve been trying to find the answer that proves the author's point to be true, not just strengthens their argument
we aren't trying to make the argument true, just make the author look better
It's starting to click!
this video was so confusing sadly. I dont think it helped explain how to avoid trap answers, so I chose D.