This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

Medical researcher: Studies in North America have shown that the incidence of heart disease in a population is closely related to the average fat consumption for individuals in that population. However, although residents of France consume, on average, as much fat as residents of North America, heart disease presently occurs half as frequently among the French as among North Americans.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why do residents of France have a rate of heart disease half that of North Americans, even though they eat as much fat as North Americans, and studies in North America show that the rate of heart disease in a population is closely related to the average fat consumption of individuals in that population?

Objective

The correct answer should tell us something special about the French compared to North Americans that would lead to a lower rate of heart disease.

A
The average level of fat consumption by the French has been falling for several decades.

This doesn’t differentiate the French from North Americans. In addition, we already know the French eat just as much fat as North Americans. We have no reason to think that higher rates of fat consumption in the past have any impact.

B
Other factors of diet besides high consumption of fat have not been similarly linked with incidence of heart disease.

If this has any impact, it deepens our confusion. If other diet factors haven’t been linked to heart disease, then it’s harder to explain the discrepancy by pointing to a difference in other foods eaten by the French and North Americans.

C
Heart disease takes years to develop and the average level of fat consumption in France increased to North American levels only a few years ago.

This points out a difference between French and North Americans that could explain the French people’s lower heart rate. They only recently reached the same level of fat consumption as North Americans, so the French’s heart disease rate may not have had enough time to rise.

D
Certain diseases other than heart disease have also been linked to average fat consumption, and the French have a higher incidence of these than do North Americans.

We’re trying to explain the discrepancy in heart disease rate. Lack of difference in rates of other disease doesn’t help explain why the French have a different rate of heart disease from North Americans.

E
Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of heart disease and France has a higher percentage of cigarette smokers in its population than does North America.

This deepens our confusion, because it would lead us to expect the French to have a higher rate of heart disease than North Americans. But they actually have a lower rate.


2 comments

While the population of city X is approximately one-half that of city Y, the number of city X residents who are patients in hospitals is only one-fourth that of the number of city Y residents who are patients in hospitals.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why is the ratio of X residents who are patients in hospitals to Y residents who are patients in hospitals lower than the ratio of X’s population to Y’s population?

Objective
This is an EXCEPT question. The four wrong answers should suggest a potential difference between X’s residents and Y’s residents that could lead to X’s residents being less likely to go to the hospital. For example, maybe X’s residents are healthier than Y’s residents, or maybe X’s residents have worse access to hospitals than Y’s residents.

A
Preventive health programs are more prevalent in city X than in city Y.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. Maybe they have fewer illnesses that require going to the hospital because of their more prevalent preventive health programs.
B
The hospitals in city X are noted as leaders in employing outpatient treatment wherever possible.
Outpatient treatment is treatment outside a hospital. This suggests X residents get more outside-the-hospital treatment than Y residents. That could be why comparatively fewer X residents are patients “in” hospitals.
C
The drinking water of city Y has dangerously high levels of pollutants, whereas this is not the case for city X.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. More dangerous water in Y could lead to more illness among Y residents, which might lead to more need for treatment in a hospital.
D
The hospitals in city Y are of very high quality, and residents of city X are often sent there for treatment.
We’re not trying to explain why X’s hospitals have fewer patients. We’re trying to explain why fewer X residents are patients in a hospital (regardless of location). X residents who go to hospitals in Y are still counted as “X residents who are patients in hospitals.”
E
The lifestyle in city X is significantly less stressful than the lifestyle in city Y.
This is a potential causal mechanism that could explain why X’s residents are less likely to go to the hospital. Less stressful lifestyles could lead to better health and less need to go to the hospital. A potential connection between stress and health is reasonable.

14 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

Mario: The field of cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline since it addresses issues also addressed by the disciplines of computer science, linguistics, and psychology. A genuinely autonomous discipline has a domain of inquiry all its own.

Lucy: Nonsense. You’ve always acknowledged that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline and that, like most people, you think of philosophy as addressing issues also addressed by the disciplines of linguistics, mathematics, and psychology. A field of study is a genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology rather than by virtue of its addressing issues that no other field of study addresses.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Lucy denies Mario’s claim that a genuinely autonomous discipline has its own domain inquiry and instead concludes a field is autonomous by virtue of having its own methodology. As evidence, she points out that in the past Mario has acknowledged philosophy as a genuinely autonomous discipline despite also thinking philosophy addresses issues also addressed by linguistics, mathematics, and psychology.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Lucy counters the position held by Mario. She does this by pointing out that Mario has demonstrated beliefs in the past that directly contradict the principle he asserts. If Mario has believed philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline, then it’s not supported that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry.

A
questioning Mario’s expertise in cognitive science
Lucy does not address Mario’s credentials or expertise. She only addresses the inconsistencies between Mario’s beliefs.
B
demonstrating that Mario confuses the notion of a field of study with that of a genuinely autonomous discipline
Lucy’s claims demonstrate that Mario has an incorrect definition of what it means for a discipline to be genuinely autonomous. This is different from confusing a genuinely autonomous discipline with a field of study.
C
showing that some of Mario’s beliefs are not compatible with the principle on which he bases his conclusion
The belief Mario holds is the belief that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline. This belief contradicts Mario’s principle that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry, because philosophy addresses issues also addressed by other disciplines.
D
disputing the accuracy of Mario’s description of cognitive science as addressing issues also addressed by other disciplines
Lucy does not address the topic of cognitive science specifically.
E
establishing that Mario is not a philosopher
Lucy does not address Mario’s status as a philosopher. We cannot assume this just because Lucy establishes that Mario holds inconsistent beliefs about philosophy.

2 comments