PT16.S3.Q24 - Birth over the age of 40

zugamazt285

"Risk of difficult birth higher for women over 40. Those with difficult birth have higher possibility of being ambidextrous..."

This stimulus just doesn't make sense to me. Consequently, I went into the AC's lost. Is anyone able to make sense of what they're trying to say and the logical flaw made?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

BlueRiceCake

Im gonna reword the stimulus to make it more clear.

Reworded Stimulus
Women over 40 have have more difficulties at giving birth than women under 40. People who are born from difficult births have a higher chance to be ambidextrous. Therefore most people who are ambidextrous are born from women over 40.

lsat_sus

What in rats ass is this sufficiency-necessity flaw. Fails to consider that what is required for an outcome could be insufficient for the outcome. Ambidextrousness could have a strong genetic explanation instead. The difference in difficulty could be miniscule and insignificant. Concludes something about most people when the case may only apply to a few. Other studies reveal no relationship between age of giving birth and child's likelihood of ambidextrousness. Most ambidextrous kids have parents who are in their late 20's.

McBeck418

@BlueRiceCake said:
Im gonna reword the stimulus to make it more clear.

Reworded Stimulus
Women over 40 have have more difficulties at giving birth than women under 40. People who are born from difficult births have a higher chance to be ambidextrous. Therefore most people who are ambidextrous are born from women over 40.

>
>
I think the way you've rewritten the stimulus leaves out some information. Women over 40 have more difficult births than younger women. People who are born from difficult births have a higher chance of being ambidextrous. Since other causes of ambidexterity have nothing to do with the age of the mom, there have to be more ambidextrous people born to 40+ women than younger.

The argument is making a comparison and in doing so, it misunderstands the relationship between per cent and numbers.

So lets say each month there are 100 babies born to women over 40 and about 10,000 babies born to women under 40. Even if women over 40 have a higher percentage of difficult births, and therefore a higher percentage of ambidextrous children, the actual numbers of ambidextrous children need not show that women over 40 had more.

In this example, it's clear that even if 60 per cent of women over 40 had ambidextrous kids, vs 40 per cent of women under 40, there is no way that the over 40s had more ambidextrous kids.