PT68.S2.Q24 - studies have found that human tears

lawschooldreams

Question asks us to identity how the argument's REASONING is most vulnerable.

I understand why (E) is a flaw; it's an obvious correlation/causation problem.
However, I don't understand why (A) isn't also a flaw.

Looking at the last two sentences of the stimulus, I see a jump from "shedding tears" to "crying." The author seems to be assuming that shedding tears implies crying, but this need not be the case and (A) brings this up. It's a subtle scope shift, but it's still a shift. Any thoughts?
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/

CJ Shin

Hey there,

Since you understand why E is the correct answer, I will just give you a reason why A is wrong. "Crying must have the effect of reducing emotional stress" is the conclusion that the argument is to reach. So considering what happens if this is tends to be true is irrelevant to the argument.

Think about it in conditional logic.
A -> B.
B -> ???

lawschooldreams

Thanks for your answer, but I disagree with your assessment.

To me, (A) is saying: If your conclusion is true (that crying reduces emotional stress), you are still attributing it to the wrong mechanism. That is, it's not because of shedding tears but due to something else.

We've seen answer choices like this before. For example, in a two speaker scenario where speaker 2 agrees with speaker 1's conclusion, but not for the reasons speaker 1 cites. Speaker 2 is thus still bringing up a flaw that speaker 1 hasn't accounted for. Does that make sense?

CJ Shin

I think we are on the same line. "Hasn't accounted for" is precisely why it is irrelevant to this particular question. Think about what A is saying again. It is not "agreeing" with the stimulus' conclusion. It is saying that "let's suppose it is true, then blah blah." But we are not even sure whether the conclusion is true or false. The author is trying to convince us that it is true, so what good is there if you suddenly create a hypothetical situation out of something that needs to be proven in the first place?