PT44.S2.Q20 - research indicates

nathanieljschwartznathanieljschwartz Alum Member
edited August 2017 in Logical Reasoning 1723 karma

So i see why AC (B) demolishes the argument and is clearly the correct AC. But does AC (A) weaken it as well?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-20/

Comments

  • AlexAlex Alum Member ⭐
    23929 karma

    @nathanieljschwartz said:
    So i see why AC (B) demolishes the argument and is clearly the correct AC. But does AC (A) weaken it as well?

    So with answer choice (A) it says "many" impulsive adults... We have to remember that on the LSAT the word many doesn't really mean any quantifiable amount. There's billions of people on earth, so even .001% of adults could mean "many." That's why I don't think it weakens the argument.

  • TheMikeyTheMikey Alum Member
    edited August 2017 4196 karma

    So B is saying basically that you can't conclude causation because the behavior it is unclear. I would say that A does not weaken it because it says many adults which translates to some adults. how many is some adults? 1? 2? 1,000? who knows. I'm usually wary in W/S questions with the words some and many, although there have been times where an AC with those words is the right AC.

    but ok, lets take this AC as it is and say that there are some impulsive adults who are not sensitive to dopamine.. this does nothing because it doesn't impact the relationship between correlation of the gene to the conclusion of the gene causing behavior. just because there are some impulsive adults who are not sensitive to dopamine doesn't mean that they got their impulsive behavior from the gene, this in itself is an assumption that is beyond what the AC itself says. it is an assumption that you probably made since you're hooked on this AC? yeah, it's too big of an assumption to make, imo, and is therefore the wrong AC and does nothing.

    disclaimer: I suck at explaining so sorry

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    . We don't know how many child children have this gene-variant. It's just twice as prevalent in thrill-seeking children. It could be 4% to 2%. So there's absolutely no weakening by saying that many adults who are impulsive are not sensitive to dopamine.
    Also, not all impulsive behavior is similar to thrill-seeking behavior. It is a certain kind of impulsive behavior. Therefore, the many impulsive adults in AC (A) might be exhibiting behavior that has nothing to do with the behavior that is the subject of the study.

  • TheMikeyTheMikey Alum Member
    4196 karma

    @"Alex Divine" said:

    @nathanieljschwartz said:
    So i see why AC (B) demolishes the argument and is clearly the correct AC. But does AC (A) weaken it as well?

    So with answer choice (A) it says "many" impulsive adults... We have to remember that on the LSAT the word many doesn't really mean any quantifiable amount. There's billions of people on earth, so even .001% of adults could mean "many." That's why I don't think it weakens the argument.

    ^ THIS :)

    Many=some

    Once I remembered that for W/S questions, they became easier tbh

  • nathanieljschwartznathanieljschwartz Alum Member
    1723 karma

    Ha,
    Hilarious that im getting schooled with the word "many" seeing as i was just giving someone an earful about it on a different thread.
    My bad, feeling slow today.lol
    Thanks @TheMikey and @"Alex Divine"

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
    13286 karma

    @nathanieljschwartz said:
    Ha,
    Hilarious that im getting schooled with the word "many" seeing as i was just giving someone an earful about it on a different thread.
    My bad, feeling slow today.lol
    Thanks @TheMikey and @"Alex Divine"

    This guy/girl.....Had the exact same problem as me, told me the source of my problem, and then made the same mistake!! hahaha. We're both pros.

  • nathanieljschwartznathanieljschwartz Alum Member
    1723 karma

    @LSATcantwin as i sit here and labor over RC, i wish for subtle nuances of LR

  • Sarah889Sarah889 Alum Member
    edited August 2017 877 karma

    I know I'm a bit late here, but I recently just got this question wrong during some drilling and I found another way to eliminate A that might be useful to someone.

    The stimulus says that the gene variant "increases sensitivity to dopamine."

    A says that "many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine."

    We don't know anything about the original condition of a person's sensitivity to dopamine. It could be that dopamine sensitivity varies greatly in all adults. Some have low sensitivity, some have high, some have average... The stimulus only says that the gene variant increases sensitivity, not that it increases sensitivity beyond what is a usual level of sensitivity.

    So the "many impulsive adults" in AC A could be the group of adults with an initial state of low sensitivity or even slightly below average sensitivity and still have their dopamine sensitivity increase, while it not being unusual. A assumes either that 1) all adult dopamine sensitivity levels are initially equivalent and increasing the sensitivity would be unusual OR 2) the adults whose dopamine sensitivity levels have increased were already at the maximum potential of dopamine sensitivity to consistent "usual," so that any increase would be therefore "unusual."

    I don't know much about human biology, but consider the argument if, instead of dopamine sensitivity, it was testosterone levels. Testosterone levels vary in each human being based on a number of things-- gender (men have significantly more testosterone than women), environment, supplements, activity, mental state, etc. Something can effectively increase the level of testosterone in a person without it being to an "unusual" level.

    This is how I had to came to terms with eliminating A.

Sign In or Register to comment.