PT49, S4, Q20 Magazine article: Sugar consumption may

[rob.schimmel]

I picked B and am having difficulty justifying why D is more correct. If I negate answer choice B - overproduction of adrenaline does not cause ADD in children - then it seems like it negates the argument and thus is a valid assumption?

[noah]

Preptest 49 June 2006 LSAT Answers

20. (D)
Question type: Assumption
The conclusion of this argument is that eating sugar may make ADD worse in children. This is supported by the fact that children produce a lot of adrenaline after eating a lot of sugar. Additionally, if the sugar comes from candy, eating other food doesn’t help lessen the effect of the sugar. As you read this argument you should notice a gap between the discussion of sugar and ADD. The correct answer, (D) nearly connects the two. Furthermore, if you negate it, the argument is nonsensical.

Answers (A) and (C) are clearly out of scope (excessive sugar’s affect on those who do not have ADD & treatment). Answer (E) relates to the argument’s last sentence, which does not in any way support the conclusion, so the answer is also out of scope. (B) is probably the most attractive wrong answer; its flaws are that it is too extreme ("overproduction", as compared to the correct answer’s "increased") and that if focuses on what causes ADD instead of what exacerbates it.

Negating (B) only leaves us knowing that overproduction of adrenaline does not cause ADD, but perhaps produce large amounts of adrenaline still exacerbates it. Does that help?

[rob.schimmel]

Thanks, that's more clear to me now. The "cause" vs. "exacerbate" idea makes it more obvious why B is wrong, in addition to the stronger language I should have noticed.