PT53.S1.Q08 - Doctor: in three separate studies, researchers...

nathanieljschwartz

Can someone please rip apart AC (E) and explain why claiming that older children who slept with night lights as infants and still suffer from nearsightedness does not weaken the conclusion?
Is it bc AC(E) says "several" and several isn't a significant claim bc it could mean 4 or 5 out of 100 which could be chocked up to being outliers?

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Admin edit: title and link

FixedDice

The problem with (E) is not that it discusses statistical anomalies - it is just irrelevant.

(E) is irrelevant because the cause of nearsightedness in said children is unknown. For all we know, their nearsightedness could have been caused by anything: they could have read books by moonlight after turning lights off, consumed some contaminated food that somehow brought about nearsightedness, participated in some secret military experiment that gave them superpowers at the cost of perfect eyesight, went through three rounds of Star Wars marathon without taking a break because they were having a fierce debate about The Last Jedi, etc.

FixedDice

Just realized I need to clarify my explanation...

@nathanieljschwartz said:
older children who slept with night lights as infants and still suffer from nearsightedness

You are making an unwarranted assumption. (E) only says said children who slept with night-lights on during infancy have nearsightedness now. It is quite possible that their vision could have been restored with age but were damaged again for some reason.