Q17 - Science writer: The deterioration of cognitive

[kylelitfin]

Can someone please help me out here? I'm struggling to understand how reduction in the production of immune cells in the brain by Acetylsalicyclic acid strengthens the science writers argument?

In general, I am finding this stimulus hard to discern. Finding the conclusion, and connecting the subsequent premises is difficult for me. Am I missing something?

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a CLASSIC example of how hard the problems can get in the 15-22 range: difficult to read/understand stimulus and the answer doesn't seem to come from an expected direction or make a lot of sense.

First things first, where is our conclusion?

The 1st sentence is our conclusion, and there are two subtle signs.

1. It's making a causal claim, but it's "evidently" caused, meaning this is the author's opinion.

2. The 2nd sentence begins "for one thing". Whenever we see a first sentence followed up by "after all", "to see this", "we know this because", etc., we know that the 1st sentence was the conclusion and now the author is offering his supporting premises.

So he's trying to prove that the activities of microglia (brain immune cells) cause the mental deterioration associated with Alzheimer's.

There are two premises to this argument (signaled by "for one thing" and "furthermore").

p1 - the deterioration can be slowed by some anti-inflammatory drugs, such as acetylsalicylic acid.

great, but what the heck does that have to do with microglia?

p2 - Alzheimer patients get BA protein deposits .. microglia attack these deposits by releasing poisons that destroy healthy cells, thereby impairing brain function.

oh. I see. well that premise is pretty convincing. I mean it fully explains how microglia, in Alzheimer's patients, leads to deterioration of cognitive faculties

The whole trick of this problem, naturally, is that most readers focus on the 2nd premise BECAUSE the 1st premise was confusing and doesn't seem to count for much.

However, the 2nd premise is very strong, direct support for the conclusion, whereas the 1st premise currently has no relevance towards microglia at all.

If we're trying to strengthen this argument, we don't really need to help out the 2nd premise. We need to make the 1st premise count for something.

So (B) comes to our rescue by explaining how acetylsalicylic acid relates to microglia. Microglia are the brain's immune cells. (B) says that acetylsalicylic acid reduces the production of immune cells in the brain. If the brain's immune cells are the cause of mental deterioration, then something that slows them down (like acetylsalicylic acid) should help ease the rate of deterioration. This echoes what we were told in the first premise: that acetylsalicylic acid slows down the mental deterioration.

Note that (B) chooses to use 'immune cells in the brain' rather than 'microglia'. When the test gives us definitions of a term, it gives itself two different ways to refer to the same thing. Harder questions in LR and RC take advantage of this. They make an answer harder to understand by using a paraphrase of a certain key term, rather than the key term itself.

A) doesn't strengthen because blaming protein deposits on the brain's immune system doesn't help us blame mental deterioration on the brain's immune cells.

C) we don't really care whether the microglia are successful or not in trying to break down the protein deposits. The deposits themselves aren't inherently harmful or helpful from what we've read. We only care that as the microglia attempt to break the proteins down, poison is released that impairs nearby brain cells.

D) this weakens in the sense that it blames cognitive deterioration on something else, when the conclusion wants to blame it on microglia.

E) "other than Alzheimer's" is hopefully a clear clue that this answer drifts out of scope, when our conclusion is purely a claim about Alzheimer's patients.

I hope this helps.

[kylelitfin]

Yes it does!

Thank you so much.

And you nailed it, I just didn't understand the first premise at all and because of that, I just naturally gravitated towards the second premise because I understood it. Looking back on my practice tests, I always placed a question mark next to choice (B) and skipped it.

Lesson learned.

[irini101]

Hello ohthatpatrick, you explained very clearly why B is correct, the answer choice is so not typical. I wonder by what means could one choose the right answer during real test in question like this? POE?

I chose C as I thought it strengthened the link in the second premise"”microglia attack the deposit of protein, but it also seems like just repeating the premise itself?

I recalled during many strengthen question with causality, we could strengthen the argument by further consolidate any one link of the causality in the argument therefore I picked C in this question.

Could you please also analyze why C incorrect from the causality link perspective? Thanks a lot!

[americano1990]

I dont really have answers for your question regarding (C) but I'd just like to share an easy way to get through these hard questions.

So this science writer tells you all these bunch of problems associated with Microglia and why its so bad for you. AND THEN he PRESCRIBES a course of action: THAT acetylsalicyclic can help.

As I was reading through this question, I made two categories
1. prescription
2. rest of the info

We are then told to strengthen the claim, and realizing that the prescription is the main thrust of the argument, I focused on that (I mean, why would we have to strengthen a bunch of factual statements i.e. premises on the LSAT, right?)

Anyways, knowing this I scanned through the answer choices looking for Acetylsalicyclic (the main 'ingredient' of the proposed course of action) and (B) luckily turns out to be the only one.

(B) simply tells us that Acetylsalicyclic would be helpful, since it would reduce an agent (immnune cells) that has been TOLD to be harmful.

Essentially, (B) is giving weight to the proposed action by telling us that it is good to go.

Hope this helps.

[matthewyoung2008]

acetylsalicylic acid is just aspirin

MCAT > LSAT

[vcoats2]

I seem to understand why B is correct overall, but I struggle with one specific part. B states that acetylsalicylic acid reduces the production of immune cells in the brain. I don't see where the stimulus indicates that reducing immune cells helps to slow the disease, which seems like a pretty big assumption. If anything, I ruled out B as an answer that "weakens" for that reason, and would have assumed that increasing the production of immune cells would have instead had a slowing effect.

Not much of a science whiz, but I attributed decreased immune cells to a weakened immune system and didn't find that the stimulus counteracted that.

[shaynfernandez]

So if the conclusion is that the microglia causes the deterioration of cognitive faculties, how does deterioration being slowed by aspirin have any effect in the argument. I don't see how this is relevant information. How does aspirin reducing production of microglia have any affect on whether microglia causes deterioration ??

EDIT:
Ok, I think I get it because we are told aspirin slows down the damage and answer B shows that aspirin also slows production of microglia then it brings the connection between microglia being the cause.

[ptewarie]

So if the conclusion is that the microglia causes the deterioration of cognitive faculties, how does deterioration being slowed by aspirin have any effect in the argument. I don't see how this is relevant information. How does aspirin reducing production of microglia have any affect on whether microglia causes deterioration ??

EDIT:
Ok, I think I get it because we are told aspirin slows down the damage and answer B shows that aspirin also slows production of microglia then it brings the connection between microglia being the cause.

You are overthinking.
For one, one thing that will help improve your LSAT score and ability to move through questions faster is understanding stimulus types.

There's two main ones:
1. Causality
2. Sufficient/Necessary

This one immediately start out making a causal claim and asks us to strengthen it
Microgilia CAUSES deterioration of brain of Alzheimer patients.

How do we prove/strengthen causality in LSAT:
1. If Cause then Effect
2. Effect ONLY when Cause
3. NO alternative reason

Ok, I start looking for ways to prove it.
I remind myself: WHAT DO I NEED TO PROVE?
THAT MICROGLIA CAUSES DETERIORATION OF BRAIN CELLS



Premise says: A. Acid reduces this deterioration of brain.
Well I immediately think, if( as the author claims) Microglia is the cause of deterioration and the acid reduces the deterioration, then the A. Acid MUST effect microglia.

Lo and behold, we see it in Answer choice B.
A. Acid reduces production of immune cells of brain (AKA microglia)

Note that Microglia is the SAME THING AS BRAIN'S OWN immune cells( it says it in first sentence)

DONE.


Other Answer choices:
A: This would weaken it. It's saying that inability of elimination(which causes problem) is caused by deficiency. The stem told us that the microgilia(immune cells) actually releases poison. Nowhere are we told that there is a Deficiency. Even if there were, this does not prove that Microglia causes deterioration of brain cells.

C: No theres' an increase( read last few sentences)

D. If Protein BA interferes with cog functons and Microglia attacks it, this does not prove that microglia is responsible

E. No this weakens it by giving way to alternative cause

[amil91]

I'll add my thoughts to the discussion as I thought of it a little bit differently than the previous posters. I viewed the first sentence as the overall conclusion, and the second sentence as more of a intermediate conclusion than a premise. But this intermediate conclusion doesn't quite connect to the conclusion as stated, maybe it would connect better if the conclusion was something more along the lines of 'the rate of deterioration can be affected by stuff in the brain.' To me I just didn't see much of how it connected to the idea that Alzheimer's is caused by microglia. When I approached this problem under timed conditions I really wasn't quite sure what to expect when looking at the answer choices as the argument seemed pretty sound after reading through. So with POE I got down to choices B and C and after going back and forth between those answers and referring back to the stimulus I realized that choice B connects the second sentence to the conclusion, it makes that sentence have some actual value in the specific terms of this argument. Whereas choice C is either simply false based on the stimulus, or a premise booster depending on how you interpret the text. Premise boosters don't strengthen arguments because they are just rewordings of premises, and things that are contrary to what is stated generally weaken an argument.

[513852276]

I agree with ptewarie that choice A seems to weak this argument. So, if choice A is "The inability of ......from the brain is caused by brain's own immune system", then would it strengthen the argument? Would the right answer still be B because B most helps to support the argument?

[tommywallach]

They don't play that game. Even though they ask the question that way, there are never two answer choices that both definitively strengthen. At worse, one strengthens and one COULD strengthen, given certain circumstances. But there will never be two answers that definitively strengthen.

[rfrahman]

I'm confused. I crossed B out because I thought it's just a premise booster. Are we allowed to choose premise boosters as answers for weaken and strengthen questions?

Any help would be great appreciated!

[shu.z]

First time posting here, trying to explain why (B) is the correct ac.

Stimulus:
C: microglia causes the deterioration of cognitive faculties
P1: the deterioration could be slowed by anti-inflammatory
drugs, such as a. acid
P2: microglia attack Protein deposits by releasing poisons that
destroy brain cells also

Analysis:
P2 makes a lot of sense. but P1 doesn't. What does anti-inflammatory
drugs (such as a. acid) to do with the C.

(B) Acetylsalicylic acid reduces the production of immune cells in the brain.
Yes! if a. acid reduces the production of immune cells, aka microglia in the brain, then we know how P1 and C link up.
The important thing to realize here is that P1 tell us we can slow the deterioration of brain by a. acid. But we don't know what's that to do with microglia? (B) gives us an answer, a. acid is reducing microglia, the thing that causes deterioration of cognitive faculties.

Another way of understanding why (B) is correct.
Ok, what if a. acid doesn't reduce microglia? How in the world could a. aic slow down the deterioration of cognitive faculties? It would make P1 even more bizzare then it initially seems.

Hope this helps!

[ohthatpatrick]

They've used this template multiple times in the last 20 tests, on a Str/Weak question late in the section.

THE TEMPLATE:
A is causing X.
After all,
A causes B.
furthermore
A causes C, which leads to X.

THE ASSUMPTION/OBJECTION:
What the heck did "B" have to do with anything? How was that relevant to the discussion of A causing X?

To see another example of this template, try this problem:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t6151.html

[krisk743]

Hello ohthatpatrick, you explained very clearly why B is correct, the answer choice is so not typical. I wonder by what means could one choose the right answer during real test in question like this? POE?

I chose C as I thought it strengthened the link in the second premise"”microglia attack the deposit of protein, but it also seems like just repeating the premise itself?

I recalled during many strengthen question with causality, we could strengthen the argument by further consolidate any one link of the causality in the argument therefore I picked C in this question.

Could you please also analyze why C incorrect from the causality link perspective? Thanks a lot!

Can anyone please answer this question? Admins?

I can see how B most helps over C...and it would probably be excruciatingly difficult to decide between the two but I really want to know why C doesn't work.

[snoopy]

Hello ohthatpatrick, you explained very clearly why B is correct, the answer choice is so not typical. I wonder by what means could one choose the right answer during real test in question like this? POE?

I chose C as I thought it strengthened the link in the second premise"”microglia attack the deposit of protein, but it also seems like just repeating the premise itself?

I recalled during many strengthen question with causality, we could strengthen the argument by further consolidate any one link of the causality in the argument therefore I picked C in this question.

Could you please also analyze why C incorrect from the causality link perspective? Thanks a lot!

Can anyone please answer this question? Admins?

I can see how B most helps over C...and it would probably be excruciatingly difficult to decide between the two but I really want to know why C doesn't work.

We want to strengthen the argument core. The argument core is that microglia (immune cells) causes Alzheimers because immune cells unintentionally destroy brain cells which lead to Alzheimers. C says immune cells decrease protein deposits. But, C is just a repeat of what has already been stated in the argument. We also want an answer that mentions immune cells and brain cells.

So, I chose B. I just want to double check my reasoning. B is not a premise booster, right? It just adds another premise. And E is out of scope because it discusses other brain diseases irrelevant to Alzheimers which is what we're focused on?

[ohthatpatrick]

We want our answer to make it more plausible that
"the brain's immune cells (microglia) cause the mental deterioration that goes along with Alzheimer's".

(B) makes that more plausible, because we know that acetylsalciylic acid (AA) slows down the deterioration, and (B) tells us that AA reduces the production of immune cells.

If taking something (AA) that reduces production of immune cells leads to less mental deterioration,
that's pretty good evidence that the immune cells were causing the mental deterioration.

(C) mostly feels like something we already knew. We knew that microglia were attacking protein buildups (presumably in the HOPE of decreasing them), and we knew that the microglia's attack was accidentally killing some healthy brain cells, which led to mental deterioration.

The argument never said that the microglia were SUCCESSFUL in breaking down / eliminating these protein deposits. It's just as compatible with the author's argument that the microglia are TRYING BUT FAILING to break down the protein deposits.

The only reason the author is bringing this up is to show how the microglia are causing mental deterioration (as they attempt to break down the protein, they release poisons that lead to mental deterioration).

So (C) is a new fact (like pretty much all answer choices ever), but it's a big "so what"?

Nothing the author is trying to convince us of has anything to do with whether or not microglia are successful in breaking down the protein deposits.

The author is only trying to convince us that microglia are the reason for the mental deterioration, so their only relevance these protein buildups have to the conversation is that we know that microglia are shooting at the protein buildups and sometimes hitting healthy cells.

I don't actually use the term Premise Booster at all (in my thinking or teaching). Both of these answers are directed towards a premise.

(B) makes a premise (the "for one thing ... " sentence) seem more relevant to the conclusion.

The conclusion is trying to link "microglia" to "mental deterioration".
The 'for one thing' sentence links "acetyl acid" to "mental deterioration".
And then (B) links "acetyl acid" to "microglia"

(C) is addressing a part of one of the premises that is immaterial to the conclusion. Whether the microglia succeeds or fails in removing protein deposits has nothing to do with the conclusion, which is purely about whether the microglia is / isn't causing mental deterioration.

(E) has nothing to do with mental deterioration, so it's unclear how (E) would help better convince us that there is a connection between microglia and mental deterioration.

If (E) said "immune reactions by microglia occur in certain other diseases of the brain that lead to mental deterioration than Alzheimer's", then it would bolster the argument.

Hope this helps.