Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
PT45.S1.Q12 - biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities
jmac800
Member
I am having a problem seeing how a/c C WEAKENS. To me it looks like it is strengthening the argument.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding how the argument is designed, I don't know, please help. The explanation video didn't help me.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-12/
Maybe I am just misunderstanding how the argument is designed, I don't know, please help. The explanation video didn't help me.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-12/
Comments
Conclusion: dioxin is unlikely to be the cause (of the reproductive abnormalities in fish)
Premise (strengthening causation): the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns
Premise (weakening causation): and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.
Context (my emphasis): Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are IMMEDIATELY downstream of paper mills. One possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release daily and which can alter the concentration of hormones in fish.
Analysis: Very tough weakening question. It’s not a typical conclusion. Normally, for a weakening question, we’re given a correlation in the premises and a conclusion that states an unjustified causation. And if the conclusion had said that dioxin was LIKELY the cause of the abnormalities and we only looked at the first premise (the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns), it’d be a classic Weakening question. But we’re given a second premise-- dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment-- which calls into question the likelihood of causation. Why? Because if the dioxin decomposes slowly, how could the fish recover after mill shutdowns? In other words, the premises show a possible cause (dioxin decomposes slowly ) without the presumed effect (fish recover after mill shutdowns).
If we’re going to weaken the unlikelihood of causation, then we have undermine these 2 premises as they work together. That’s why C is such a great answer. It explains why the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment, yet the dioxin might still be the cause. Even though dioxin decomposes slowly, it pushes way past the fish “that are immediately down stream of the paper mills” when those paper mills shut down.
Elimination: (A) attacks the person. (B) seems to weaken the argument by undermining a premise, but it would not explain why the fish recover during mill shutdowns. (C) looks good. (D) irrelevant. (E) irrelevant.
Hope this helps.
Hey @DumbHollywoodActor
Mind explaining a little bit more about why C is correct?
I think I understand what you're saying. Continued dioxin flowing downriver would build up higher levels of dioxin that are still slow to decompose, posing even more of a risk.
One thing I can't get past is the lack of info regarding the fish recovering and the occasional mill shutdowns. Maybe I overlooked something in your explanation, but to my mind, if we don't know how long it takes fish to recover and we don't know how often the mill shuts down, then it could be the case that the mill shuts down every hour and the fish recover within that time.
Does that still not compensate for the build up in dioxin and the slow decomposition?
@"Aaron Frank" said:
We DO know how fast the fish recover:
"relatively quickly"
The framework of this is Phenomenon/Hypothesis. While it's a weakening question, a more helpful process would be to find evidence that strengthens the explanation the dioxin is likely to be the cause. It's weird because this argument is trying to eliminate a possible causal factor by saying that if dioxin was a causal factor, the state of the fish involved would be much worse than it actually is.
The second difficulty is the tension between the 2 premises. One premise says that the fishes' hormones recover relatively quickly (make sure you recognize that reproductive abnormalities COULD still occur despite this recovery). The other premise (that dioxin decomposes very slowly) implies that if dioxin were the cause, the hormone recovery would take LONGER than it actually does. But there are so many other factors to consider, such as RIVER CURRENTS.
As for answer (C). Sometimes thinking about the opposite of an answer can be a helpful tool: What if normal currents carried the dioxin away downstream in a matter of MONTHS rather than hours? Wouldn't that strengthen the likelihood that dioxin had nothing to do with the reproductive abnormalities? Because if it did, the hormone concentration wouldn't recover as quickly as the stimulus says that it does.
That's why (C) is the correct answer. It parries the evidence that dioxin decomposes very slowly by saying that, while that might be true, it doesn't matter because dioxin is affecting the fish for a relatively short amount of time.
Hope this helps. Feel free to follow up.
@DumbHollywoodActor Nope. Exacerbated it. Going back to basic structure now.
The dioxin is not causing the abnormalities. Why? The fish recover hormones relatively quickly and the dioxin takes a long time to decompose. Support: If the dioxin were causing abnormalities, the fish wouldn't recover hormones as quickly during shut downs because the dioxin is still present (has not yet decomposed).
C: The dioxin is carried past the fish to FAR downstream in a few hours.
I don't see river currents as being relevant.
If the dioxin is carried away in a few hours and the fish still recover, then what? If the dioxin floats away downstream in a few hours, then it still builds up in the fish area I guess. It just goes away downstream in a few hours. I don't see how this affects anything. If anything it would seem to strengthen. If it goes away in a few hours, it seems like there would be less exposure to the fish than initially thought and thus, less of a reason to think dioxin causes abnormalities.
Or to weaken, I guess you could say, because it floats downriver so fast, fish are being bombarded with dioxin every few hours and it isn't decomposing fast enough. Dioxin released daily and the shutdowns are only occasional. River carries dioxin downstream in a few hours. Maybe doesn't matter about the shutdowns because of the buildup of dioxin in fish over time. Ok. Well, they still recover hormones in a few hours during shutdowns though. A lot of assumptions that ultimately lead to nothing. I don't know what.
I will try by hand in working through this problem. I’m curious about what others think of this explanation, please let me know. We have a phenomena: immediately downstream from a paper mill, fish have a specific abnormality. The hypothesis initially provided for this is that the paper mill released dioxin and dioxin can alter the hormones of the fish.
Lets stop here. like any thorough BR, we should try to really take these questions apart. This is a phenomena/hypothesis with a twist, this is a phenomena/other people’s hypothesis. In other words: this isn’t our author’s hypothesis. A necessary assumption at this juncture is: a change in concentrations of hormones can result in reproductive abnormalities. I know next to zero about fish hormones or the process in which fish come to have reproductive abnormalities, so the previous sentence better be true for the other people’s hypothesis.
the 5th line down our author introduces a however: rendering what we just read something akin to context: I say something akin to context because the phenomena is still something our author will attempt to address.
Our author tells us that dioxin is unlikely to be the cause. The cause of what? The cause of the reproductive abnormalities in the fish. What fish? those in immediately proximity downstream to the paper mill. This reads as the author’s conclusion, because it seems like something that is going to need to be proven.
The “since” introduces premises. Here is where this problem gets difficult: our author is trying to build towards the idea that other people’s hypothesis is not valid. In other words, our author is trying to build towards the idea that the abnormalities were not caused by the dioxin that is released daily.
When constructing our author’s support for that contention I have found it helpful to construct the support (as best we can) in a vacuum before we proceed. What I mean by this is lets try to take a look what the author uses to support the contention that dioxin isn’t causing the abnormalities by checking any and all assumptions we might have about these things in the real world. Let’s get super clear on how our author constructs the argument: our author says dioxin probably not the cause because: 1.the fish recover quickly when the mill shuts down and 2. dioxin decomposes slowly.
This is odd. Abstractly, our author is saying: it can’t be chemical X that is causing the abnormalities because when the mill stops pumping chemical x into the habitat of the fish the fish recover quickly and we know that chemical x decomposes very slowly in the environment.
What our author is saying to us is: it cannot be the dioxin that is causing all of this because IF IT WAS, we would not see the fish get better when the mill shut down. That is super convoluted. What our author is saying is that the combination of facts that dioxin decomposes slowly and the fact that when the mill stops pumping dioxin the fish gets better, IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER: ABSOLVES DIOXIN OF WRONGDOING. Our author is telling us that if it were dioxin, we wouldn’t see such a combination of the phenomena observed. Embedded here is our core assumption: that the dioxin is present in a single space while it takes its time to break down.
How do we weaken that kind of support for a conclusion: one way would be to say: actually author, the dioxin is carried downstream within hours: the dioxin is not even in a single place for it to take a long time to break down i.e. be applicable to the situation you have constructed: it travels. That whole second leg of your argument is not applicable to the situation. Notice what we are NOT doing here: we are not saying that it must be dioxin that is causing the abnormalities. We are simply saying that the reasoning structure that our author uses, rests on premises that don’t hold as much persuasive power in relation to the conclusion given the existence of the credited response.
I hope this helps
David
Essentially, our author has said that because the fish got better and dioxin takes a long time to decompose therefore dioxin cannot be the cause.
Lets look at a pretty decent formulation of the contrapositive:
If it were dioxin that was the culprit then the fish would not get better or dioxin does not decompose as stated.
Abstractly, what we are doing here with the credited response is saying: the sufficient condition that the author wishes to fulfill to reach the conclusion that dioxin is not at fault actually does not apply to this particular situation. Therefore the construct that the author has given us gets us nowhere in my opinion.
>
Surely you've seen descriptive flaw questions whose correct answers say that the argument has failed to consider X. This argument is failing to consider a multitude of things. It could have been any number of variables, like salinity of the water, other chemicals, other wildlife. What you have to recognize for this question is that a river is NOT a vacuum. And this argument is essentially holding all other variables as constant like scientists do in a vaccuum. Answer C essentially says at least one variable was NOT held constant: river currents. The speed of the river current could be a causal factor in why the normal hormone concentrations recovered so quickly. And that is why dioxin could STILL be a causal factor (not the whole enchilada) in the reproductive anomalies.
Our author is telling us that if it were dioxin, we wouldn’t see such a combination of the phenomena observed. Embedded here is our core assumption: that the dioxin is present in a single space while it takes its time to break down.
So you're saying the main flaw here is that just because dioxin breaks down slowly does not mean that it stays and decomposes in the same place as the fish? If it washes away far downriver (C) and doesn't necessarily decompose in the same place as the fish, then the slow decomposition premise is invalid or less supportive.
They can still recover during the shutdowns though. So does this just weaken one of the premises? Seems like what you're saying, I think. @BinghamtonDave
@"Aaron Frank" fantastic. What I would add to what you wrote in response is just a minor caveat on verbiage: (C) does not weaken the premise. (C) weakens the premise’s alleged support/relevance for the conclusion. Remember: our premise is a description of the properties of dioxin. Our premise is that dioxin breakdown at a certain rate. Our answer choice is not: dioxin does not break down at that rate or some variation on the statement that the premise is wrong. Our answer choice goes after the relevance of the premise to the conclusion. Abstractly here, dioxin still could break down at the rate provided, it’s just that in this particular case that rate isn’t contained within a stable enough environment to be counted as support for the given conclusion. Super subtle on the part of the test makers in my estimation.
This is an exceptionally rare question. It can be found on several lists online as one of the hardest LR questions of all time. I have been studying for about 11 months hunting this 180 and I can tell you right now, I am happy that a question like this is rare: an LR section would be a nightmare if a section was filled with questions like this.
For those of you who might be following this thread: I am open to easier interpretations of this problem.
David
Ok. I've got it. You pointed out that the support is weakened by exposing the assumption that dioxin stays in the same place. If it doesn't stay in the same place and flows past the fish, the slow dioxin decomposition isn't as relevant. If you the dioxin flows away quickly, the fish could recover quickly during shutdowns but the fact that there's no dioxin there when that happens significantly weakens the support.
This might be a correlation or phenomenon question like you said. The author is trying to dismiss a correlation between dioxin and abnormalities. And they are assuming that when the fish recover quickly during shutdowns, the dioxin is still present. They're saying that the result doesn't appear when the supposed cause is still present during shutdowns, so your correlation argument is irrelevant. But if the supposed cause isn't even present at the times when they recover quickly, then they haven't really diminished the correlation argument. Am I taking that too far?
I've been studying since July so I'm in the same boat. Very committed to getting a high score and I'm glad to hear this is one of the hardest questions.
Thanks a lot for your help guys. You've nailed everything down perfectly. I have a much better understanding of the argument now.
@BinghamtonDave @DumbHollywoodActor
@Sami