PT70.S4.Q10 - refusing to think about your problems causes gum disease

Comments

• lsattaker10 Free Trial Member

  October 2017 76 karma

  Oh I remember this question! The key to this question is the gap between the evidence and the conclusion. The evidence talks about "people who react to problems by refusing to think about them", but the conclusion talks about those who are "stressed". Answer A can be eliminated because pain is not mentioned in the stimulus, Answer C is wrong because the argument says the opposite, and Answer D is too far of an inference because nothing further is said about those who address problems quickly, so we certainly can't deduce they will seek dental care quickly.

  That leaves B and E. The answer choice bridge the ideas of "stressed" people and "people who refuse to think about problems". I'm not too sure if this helps but you can break it down to the formal logic.

  1)People who address problems --> less likely to have GD
  People who refuse to think -> more likely to have GD

  2)STRESS = [negative effect on immune system]

  3)GD ->(some) caused by [negative effect on immune system]
  GD ->(some) STRESS

  Inference: People who refuse to think -> more likely to have GD ->(some) STRESS, which is answer choice B.

  E is wrong because its reversed. Stress makes people refuse to think about their problems. Its basically going backwards on the the inference, if that makes any sense.

  I hope thats right.
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2017 10806 karma

  To me, it just seems that we are only required to assume that those who refuse to think about there problems are more stressed. Maybe it is the stress that causes them not to think about their problems... Who knows! I don't see why we have to assume a causal relationship between the two for the argument to work.

  I think you did a great job by linking that there is a connection between stress and people who refuse to think about problems. I think the next step is to ask, which link would enable me to draw the conclusion in stimulus?

  Would it be:
  stress--> not thinking about problems
  and
  stress ---> suppression of immune system-->gum disease

  or

  not thinking about problems-->stress-->suppression of immune system--> gum disease
• iceman322 Alum Member

  October 2017 70 karma

  @Sami

  Can you please explain to me why the conclusion would not follow if we assumed that the degree to which one thinks about his/her problems strongly correlates with the degree to which he/she is stressed?
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2017 10806 karma

  @iceman322 said:
  @Sami

  Can you please explain to me why the conclusion would not follow if we assumed that the degree to which one thinks about his/her problems strongly correlates with the degree to which he/she is stressed?

  So correlation is actually necessary and its a necessary assumption of the stimulus and if an answer choice just stated that these two are correlated it would be correct. Regardless of which direction two things are causally related, in both instances -if stress caused one to not think about his problems and if not thinking about problems causes stress- implies correlation. This is because all instances of causality implies correlation. But the problem is correlation is not enough to have a causal conclusion.
  Just because eating ice cream and taking a bath are correlated doesn't mean they are causally related. It could be that heat is causing both an increase in eating ice cream and taking a bath.

  In our stimulus we have a correlation and a causal fact. And then a causal conclusion. You want to ask yourself what's wrong with authors reasoning?

  Just because not thinking about problem correlates with gum disease and stress causes suppression of immune system can we now say suppression of immune system causes gum disease?

  But the author does. The author is saying suppression of immune system causes gum disease just because of the two premises. So how did he logically arrive at this?

  If we take our two causal statements we have this:
  Stress causes suppression of immune system which causes gum disease.

  But I only know that gum disease correlates/happens together with not thinking about problem.

  In order to have a causal chain I need to link: not thinking about problem causes stress which causes suppression of immune system which causes gum disease.

  If we only had that stress causes suppression of immune system and stress correlates with not thinking about problem; and not thinking about problem correlates with gum disease.

  From this we cannot conclude that because not thinking about problem correlates with gum disease, suppression of immune system now causes gum disease.

  In order to conclude causally, we need a nice causal chain.

  So if an answer choice had stated that stress and not thinking about problems are correlated its definitely necessary for the argument. But the correct answer choice actually wants to find out if you can see the correct way about causal chains.

  Let me know if this helped
• iceman322 Alum Member

  October 2017 70 karma

  @Sami

  In order to have a causal chain I need to link: not thinking about problem causes stress which causes suppression of immune system which causes gum disease.

  Regardless of weather or not putting off your problems causes stress or merely correlates with stress, the argument still only proves a correlation between a weakened immune system and gum disease. Just think: even when we assume that not thinking about problems causes stress which in turn causes a weakened immune system, there is still no reason to believe that the weakened immune system is causing the gum disease. As far as I can tell, all we have have established is that people who avoid thinking about their problems have weakened immune systems (because they don't think about their problems) and also have gum disease. To put it another way, we have established that there is a correlation between having a weakened immune system and having gum disease, but not that the former is causing the latter.

  This is where it gets confusing. The argument goes on to conclude that the study shows us that a weakened immune system is causing the gum disease. So this means that the argument is making a second assumption, that the relationship between a weakened immune system and having gum disease is a causal relationship, not just a correlation.

  If this is right, then to me it seems like all we need to assume to make the argument work is that, for what ever reason, the people who avoided their problems were more stressed than those who dealt with their problems. Being more stressed resulted in a weakened immune system which, the argument assumes, causes gum disease.

  But it also means that the argument is literally assuming its own conclusion.

  Am I missing something here?
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2017 10806 karma

  Hey,

  So the definition of an assumption is an unstated premise. It's not that the argument is assuming it's own conclusion, since a conclusion is a stated inference, but he made an assumption/jump to get to the conclusion. That's why the conclusion looks weird to you because you realize that just based on the premise he assumed something to make that conclusion.

  Our task when that happens is to realize what is the assumption that someone made to get to that conclusion. Our answer choices for the most part test us on that.
• iceman322 Alum Member

  October 2017 70 karma

  @Sami

  It's not that the argument is assuming it's own conclusion, since a conclusion is a stated inference, but he made an assumption/jump to get to the conclusion.

  So you agree with me that the arguer inferred or "jumped" from the sub-conclusion that there is a correlation between having a weakened immune system and having gum disease to the conclusion that former caused the latter?

  Aren't we not allowed to infer causality from mere correlation?

  But if we do allow this deeply flawed inference, then the answer choice isn't necessary. Since we are going to be making an unwarranted jump from correlation to causation anyways, all we need for the argument to work is to establish a correlation between having a weak immune system and gum disease. And assuming that avoiding your problems merely correlates with (but does not cause) stress works just fine.
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2017 10806 karma

  @iceman322 said:

  So you agree with me that the arguer inferred or "jumped" from the sub-conclusion that there is a correlation between having a weakened immune system and having gum disease to the conclusion that former caused the latter?

  Hey,

  So I don't see where the sub-conclusion in the argument is about the correlation between weaken immune system and gum disease. The only thing we know about immune system from the premises is that stress causes it to be weakened and the only thing we know about gum disease is that it is correlated with not thinking about problems. The first time gum disease and immune system are linked is in the conclusion and the link is causal -this is a jump from the premise where they are not even connected much less have a causal link.

  But if we do allow this deeply flawed inference, then the answer choice isn't necessary. Since we are going to be making an unwarranted jump from correlation to causation anyways, all we need for the argument to work is to establish a correlation between having a weak immune system and gum disease. And assuming that avoiding your problems merely correlates with (but does not cause) stress works just fine.

  I think I agree with you that the argument is flawed. The argument is flawed because there is no stated premise that helps us arrive at the conclusion that weakened immune system causes gum disease. There two ideas are unconnected in the premises. The question to ask is, what unstated premise by using your two premises in the stimulus would help you arrive at the conclusion?

  But I don't see how just establishing a correlation between having a weak immune system and gum disease would make the causal conclusion work. You still have to figure out how the two premises in the stimulus worked in conjunction to arrive at the conclusion because as it stands gum disease and suppressed immune system are not connected by the premises.
• iceman322 Alum Member

  October 2017 70 karma

  @Sami

  Ok here is my last stab at it. Maybe I just need to mull it over for a few days... But right now I am pretty convinced that this question is deeply flawed. I also need more things to do on a Saturday night...

  Here is how I see the argument working:

  (P1) Avoiding your problems is correlated with gum disease. [As stipulated by the stimulus]

  (P2) Avoiding your problems causes stress.[As stipulated by the AC]

  (P3) Stress causes a weakened immune system [As stipulated by the stimulus]

  (C) A weakened immune system causes gum disease [As stipulated by the stimulus]

  So I don't see where the sub-conclusion in the argument is about the correlation between weaken immune system and gum disease.

  Sorry if this was confusing. What I was referring to as a sub-conclusion was the claim you get by putting together (P1), (P2), and (P3). And now that I think about it, putting the three premises together barely amounts to a correlation between having a weakened immune system and having gum disease. All it really amounts to is saying that those who have a weakened immune system because they are avoiding their problems also have gum disease.

  I think you agree that this very weak correlation, if not coincidence, provides basically no support for the conclusion. As you say:

  But I don't see how just establishing a correlation between having a weak immune system and gum disease would make the causal conclusion work.

  It doesn't! To me it seems that, even when we assume the AC, the the bulk of the support for the casual conclusion is derived from other unstated assumptions which make the causal conclusion more likely. This makes the AC as a necessary assumption problematic. We don't need the AC to have anything to do with causality because it quite literally cannot prove causality between a weakened immune system and gum disease. The other unstated assumptions perform this role, and we need them regardless of whether or not the AC has anything to do with causality.

  To put it another way, regardless of whether the AC has anything to do with causality, it doesn't do anything in the argument except help prove that those who have a weakened immune system because they are avoiding their problems also have gum disease. On its own, this claim provides almost no support for the conclusion, and we can basically reach the same claim even if avoiding one's problems only correlates with stress.
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2017 10806 karma

  @iceman322 said:

  It doesn't! To me it seems that, even when we assume the AC, the the bulk of the support for the casual conclusion is derived from other unstated assumptions which make the causal conclusion more likely. This makes the AC as a necessary assumption problematic. We don't need the AC to have anything to do with causality because it quite literally cannot prove causality between a weakened immune system and gum disease.

  I think a better way to see necessary assumptions and what might help is to try to see the gap between the premise and the conclusion instead of proving the conclusion. So instead of what proves how weakened immune system and gum disease are causally related, I see it more as where the author linked to get to that conclusion.

  I think what your task can be is more clearer if I put it in a simpler argument.

  Stimulus:
  Premise 1. A-->B

  ---

  Conclusion: if C therefore B

  Instead of trying to prove C therefore B I want to see from the above premise of A-->B, how can I come to C-->B?

  The missing premise/assumption is C--->A.

  If C-->A-->B
  Then I can conclude if C-->B.

  Although the missing premise is C-->B the correct answer choice can say B some C or there is no way that C occurs without B, or if there is no B there is no C. Any of the above ways of saying the necessary assumption/gap will do.

  Let me know if putting it in a simpler argument made it easier?

  If not, I summon @"Cant Get Right"