Looking to build a study group with others preparing for August LSAT! Currently scoring in low 160s trying to reach goal of 170, if interested feel free to message me!
@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!
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?
@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!