Q20 - Newspaper article: People who take

[aileenann]

This is a weaken question - and in particular a "most weakens" question, meaning we need to take a moment to eyeball each answer. But first, of course, we need to figure out the core of this argument. Let's take a look.

The conclusion is the first sentence - that people who take Vitamin C tend to be healthier than those who don't - a conclusion reached on somewhat narrow (only heart disease) grounds. Another problem is that the conclusion talks about vitamin C, but we only know about high doses not regular doses.

(A) is irrelevant - we don't care about how the vitamin C is taken. This doesn't relate to anything in the conclusion or in the premises. Eliminate this on the first go round.

(B) might at first seem tempting, but all it is doing is limiting how good Vitamin C can possibly be. But we are interested in the more fundamental claim that it is good for you/creates better health. We are not interested in comparing it to other vitamins/nutrients/etc. Eliminate this on the first go round.

(C) is no good either. We don't care about Vitamin E - all this does is tell us that the effect we are arguing about here can be amplified, but we are trying to disprove the effect concluded by the author in the first place! Eliminate this on the first go round.

(D) is good in referring specifically to *high doses* of Vitamin C, since that is what we had in our conclusion. This weakens the conclusion because it uses the narrow scope of the evidence (only about heart disease) as an opportunity to weaken the argument instead by pointing to contrary (but not contradictory evidence) about negative health effects in another domain. This is a good option, so we'll hold onto it.

(E) strengthens the argument. Eliminate this.

We're only left with (D) - this is the only answer choice that weakens the argument at all.

This is probably a difficult problem because it looks like a correlation/causation problem, but it really isn't. It's good to have your eyes open for such an argument situation, but also be careful about not seeing it where it isn't.

Any questions about this? I'm happy to help


#officialexplanation

[jennifer]

I am sorry I still do not understand how D weakens?

[aileenann]

Hey Jennifer - no worries! I'll try to find another way to explain this.

Let's first think about how the argument is working. It's basically saying that this thing, let's call it A (for high doses of vitamin C) is good for B (health) because we see effect C (good heart health). So generally the argument is saying that A is good for B because A is good for C. But we don't know that B and C are the same. It might turn out that what is good for C is not good for B.

(D) gets right to the heart of that by pointing out a way that what is good for B (heart) health is nonetheless not good for C (overall health) because A has bad effects as well as good effects. In otherwords (D) is showing overall that vitamin C has bad effects as well as good effects and that therefore it isn't necessarily entirely clear that (D) is all good.

I hope this helps! If you're still confused please don't hesitate to let us know, and we'll find another way to explain it

[jennifer]

Thank you, I do understand now. Also your first explaination was also helpful. I was having some sort of mental block, and coming back to both the question and your explainations now I see my error. Sorry thank you again

[geverett]

Answer choice B and A would be sufficient weakener if this was question #3 of section 2 but they are not sufficient to be a weakener in the context of this question. That's why they are wrong.

[farhadshekib]

Answer choice B and A would be sufficient weakener if this was question #3 of section 2 but they are not sufficient to be a weakener in the context of this question. That's why they are wrong.

I respectfully disagree - the LSAT cannot include 3 answer choices that could potentially weaken the argument (even if that means by 1%).

(A) is irrelevant because it is talking about "different effects" of different forms of vitamin C. its too vague to undermine the argument.

For all we know, the different effects could all be beneficial.

Edit: perhaps you mean that the language used in answer choices (A) and (B) could potentially be correct answers to weakening questions in the beginning of LR sections?

(B) suggests that the benefits of Vit C (i.e. risk reduction in risk of heart disease) could be attained by other dietary changes.

However, this still leaves open the possibility that Vit C supplements could promote greater than average health in people who take it.

Perhaps vit C also benefits people in other ways that cannot be attained by making other dietary changes?

Either way, this answer choice is "too weak" to be a weakener.

(D), however, makes explicit a negative side effects of vit C - i.e. it makes people more susceptible to "common infectious diseases", which casts doubt on the conclusion.

[demetri.blaisdell]

farhadshekib,

Thank you for keeping everybody honest. It should be true that only one answer choice weakens on a weaken question.

(A) is out of scope. Consuming vitamin C in food is not anywhere in the argument. Note the last sentence says "consume high doses of vitamin C supplements." (A) has no effect whatsoever on the argument.

(B) is also out of scope. The conclusion is that people who take vitamin C supplements are healthier than average. Telling me that some other dietary change is better has no effect on health benefits of vitamin C. Another way to think about it is: could we accept (B) as true and still draw the conclusion from the premise? We can.

It's tempting to get a little lazy and explain wrong strengthen/weaken answers using the "most strengthen" language. Don't get complacent. When you can knock out all the answers for principled reasons, you've really nailed the question.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Demetri

[jrkovals]

In my opinion the hard part about his question was the wording of D. My mind kept processioning it as increase resistance. Idk why.

[kyuya]

Quick breakdown of the argument

- people who take vitamin c supplements are healthier than average (conclusion)
- those who consume high doses of vitamin c regularly have much lower risk of heart disease (premise)

(A) This doesn't matter, even if true. We are only concerned about vitamin C SUPPLEMENTS.

(B) This doesn't make the argument weaker. Even if true, it would be consistent with the argument. These are both able to be true without any damage being done to the argument because vitamin C doesn't need to have a monopoly on being a means of reducing heart disease.

(C) Again, just like (B), even if this is true, it is consistent with the argument. This doesn't mean that vitamin C doesn't make people healthy, so it has no effect on the argument.

(D) Here is a flaw of taking high doses of vitamin C supplements, and weakens it by showing that there is a downside to taking these supplements. Correct answer.

(E) this strengthens the argument, by showing yet another benefit of vitamin C.

[andrew.penry]

Focus on the conclusion "People who take Vitamin C supplements tend to be healthier than average" the rest is junk trying to give an example of why a particular study. D weakens the conclusion.

[StephanieS945]

Tricky question. I originalyl choose (B) but on second review, we can see answer choice B compares Vitamin C to other dietary changes, most importantly it doesn't point to HIGH doses. Also, its irrelevant whether the impact of Vit C is the same as other changes. We want to know whether High Doses of Vit C make you HEALTHIER on average.

Answer choice (D) nails this by pointing us in the direction that high doses of Vit C could reduce slightly one's resistance to certain other diseases. In other words--If I'm taking high doses of Vitamin C, I'm not necessarily going to be healthier since I might get sicker more often from OTHER type of diseases. Who cares about a positive Heart Disease impact--the conclusion was about "healthier than average" so if I'm getting loads of other diseases then it makes it hard for me to support the claim high doses of Vitamin C make me healthier on average!