PT45.S1.Q12 biologists...dioxin. Why is answer choice D wrong?

studenthello

The correct rationale for choice D being incorrect is its irrelevancy since physiological changes don't sway the argument.

In blind review, I interpreted the answer choice as relevant because if some of the fish didn't recover rapidly from physiological changes (aka. reproductive abnormalities - sentence 1), then even after the occasional mill shutdowns, though the hormone concentrations return, the physiological changes (aka. reproductive abnormalities) persist. So in essence, the recovery of hormones and dioxin decomposition don't matter at all since the physiological changes/abnormalities happen regardless once the fish contact the dioxin.

I think I'm jumping the gun with the physiological changes part because the crux of the argument is on the hormone concentrations, even if physiological changes happen after. I think I'm also assuming physiological changes equal reproductive abnormalities. Or even if physiological changes equal reproductive abnormalities, the recovery times don't matter. I'm probably not even addressing the premise the author gives and focusing on the context.

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-12

claremont

Imagine fish in a pool and I'm dumping dioxin into the water. The fish are sick and have physiological abnormalities, e.g., let's say they're all sterile.

You tell me to stop dumping dioxin into the water because it's affecting their hormones which is making them all sterile. So I stop dumping the dioxin. A week later their hormone levels have all returned to normal, but most of them are still sterile. Now imagine you tell me it's my fault they're still sterile because I was dumping dioxin into the pool which altered their hormone concentration which made them sterile. I would shrug my shoulders and say "You said the dioxin caused their hormones to change which caused their physiological abnormalities, but look, their hormone levels have returned to normal and they are still swimming around in the same amount of dioxin as before. How could it possibly be the dioxin that changed their hormone levels which caused the physiological abnormalities?"

AC D, "some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by the changes in hormone concentrations" would be completely consistent with my defense.

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I chose it for simplicity and also because it reflects the underlining assumption of the argument, i.e., that the concentration of the dioxin relative to the afflicted fish population doesn't change.

I hope this helps and doesn't add any confusion.