Q12 - The number of different synthetic

[mchuynh]

can someone explain to me why is the answer B?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Notice that the author is comparing the number of different synthetic compounds to the number of nonsynthetic compounds -- but based on this statement it could be true that there are just a few different types of synthetic compounds, but a great great actual number of these few types (Here's an analogous scenario: Imagine that Intel makes fewer types of chips that the number of chips Company X sells, for example, but Intel sells a gazillion of each type of chip it makes).

This is the potential issue that the correct answer -- which is (D) -- addresses.

Hope that helps!

[jlz1202]

Could any one analyze why C is not credited?
I think "not known to be carcinogen" and "in other respects toxic" somehow corresponds to flaws in the stimulus?

Thanks in advance!

[kaseyb002]

Could any one analyze why C is not credited?
I think "not known to be carcinogen" and "in other respects toxic" somehow corresponds to flaws in the stimulus?

Thanks in advance!

I think part of it has to do with "some". If (C) were true, well, it could still easily be the case that it's "absurd" to think that the recent rise in cancer is due to synthetics. Just because some cats are rabid (or "toxic") doesn't really destroy our argument if we were to say "it's crazy to attribute the rise in rabid-like diseases to cats".

[timmydoeslsat]

I would say answer choice C is grasping at the idea that although something is not known to be a carcinogen, it could be toxic in other ways.

We want to stick with the cancer rate issue of course. This is our conclusion. Is it really absurd to attribute the rising cancer rate on the synthetic compounds when the number of different synthetic compounds is way less than the number of different nonsynthetic compounds?

It is not absurd when you consider, like Mike did above, that it could be true that although less diverse, the synthetic compounds could be way more prevalent in peoples' lifes. What could potentially have more exposure, 1 singular synthetic compound found in almost all frozen dinners or the 100,000 different nonsynthetic compounds found in plants in a secluded forest?

This is what the argument has failed to consider. This is, in other words, what the argument assumes is not occurring.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We're asked to determine on what grounds the argument is vulnerable to criticism.

So what's the argument trying to prove? That the rise in cancer over recent decades is due to something other than synthetic carcinogens. Why? Because nonsynthetic carcinogens greatly outnumber synthetic ones. The issue here is the frequency of contact we have with synthetic carcinogens vs. nonsynthetic ones. Just because there are more nonsynthetic carcinogens does not establish that they are more likely to have been responsible for the rise in cancer. If we have more contact with synthetic carcinogens, then it could be the synthetic ones to blame. This issue is perfectly stated in answer choice (D).

Incorrect Answers

(A) is exactly what the argument tried to establish, not what it failed to consider.
(B) plays off a twist that cancer might be due to something other than synthetic or nonsynthetic carcinogens. But this answer choice would support the conclusion, rather than undermine it.
(C) would support the conclusion that it is something other than synthetic carcinogens that are to blame for the rise in cancer in recent decades.
(E) is irrelevant to the conclusion. A wide degree of susceptibility does not establish whether that means on average a low or high degree of susceptibility.