PT42.S4.Q1 - "Many babies have a yellowish tinge..."

Lime Green DotLime Green Dot Member ⭐
edited May 2021 in Logical Reasoning 1384 karma

Question link below:
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-4-question-01/

All on board with the clearly strengthening correct A/C here, but I was wondering about a hypothetical alternative and the role of Drs group 1.

  • In this Q, could an answer choice that merely shows that there aren't other negative effects that come about as a result of leaving B as it is in the NB ever serve to strengthen the 2nd Drs' argument? I'd think that "no effect" would not be reason enough to support allowing B to remain high, even though it may not hurt the NB or the 2nd Drs' ARG either. So do you think it's correct to say that any A/C for this Q would need to show some sort of benefit of leaving B levels high and not merely be inert?

  • Does the argument by the first group of Drs mentioned have any impact on the second group of Drs' ARG other than to serve as a point of contrast/reference?

Thanks!

Comments

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited May 2021 2249 karma

    Blargh, I'm always scared to answer hypothetical questions because...they're hypothetical lol. The actual questions in existence are bad enough lol. I don't think these two arguments have a direct impact on each other; it's more like these two arguments sound legit on their faces because they have legitimate reasons in favor of them coming from two on topic sources of expertise (doctors) so it's hard to pick which option so there's got to be something to tip the scales one way or another. I'm not sure if merely stating that one of the doctor's argument has no effect, or no negative effect would necessarily help. You would still be stuck in the same place, with two arguments that are backed by at least one reason so it's like ok, the option Doctor A is going for won't cause your baby to explode, but...which option should we go for then?

  • Lime Green DotLime Green Dot Member ⭐
    1384 karma

    @Na-leh2021 Hahahaha.. thanks for this vivid commentary! LOL seriously XD

    And totally agree, I always add lots of mights, coulds and maybes when I answer such Qs as well. But I find the thought experiment very helpful, and this is probably weird, but I also actually enjoy the deep-dive backs-and-forth. :smile:

    Yes, like I'd written, I also feel like "no effect" wouldn't be doing any supporting work at all for Drs Group #2. I just wondered what a "blocking" A/C might have looked like, and I thought weirdly that the correct A/C might go in a direction like "allowing B levels to remain high in babies doesn't hamper other bodily functions from developing properly," but I was clearly trying to use this method in the wrong way.

    Looking back, I think for some weird reason I was comprehending the conclusion as saying something like "the 2nd group of Drs argue that allowing B to remain high isn't harmful to babies," not just arguing for the levels to remain high, which can be supported in a number of ways. But I think it's pretty clear now there should be some net positive, giving us some reason why we should do ST (or in this case not do anything). Just keeping the status quo is not gonna do it, unless any alternative to that is riskier to the baby.

    Whew, okay! Got it now. Thanks again!

Sign In or Register to comment.