Q20 - Scientist: My research indicates

[noah]

This is a strange weaken question in that it does not do what most weaken questions do and attack an assumption - the connection between a premise and the conclusion. Instead the answer correct answer calls into question the validity of a premise. For this argument, wrong answer analysis is key.

The argument states that there is a causal relationship between a specific gene variant and an inclination towards thrill-seeking. Why? Because children who tend to seek thrills (impulsive behavior) are twice as likely to have this gene variant. Pretty sound argument so far. However, (B) calls into question whether the researcher was really able to identify kids who seek thrills because that behavior is indistinguishable from other behaviors. So, if it turns out those kids were not thrill-seeking but were actually lacking self-control, for example, then the gene variant may cause that, not thrill-seeking (and my example assumes that lacking self-control is not the same as thrill-seeking!)

(A) is tempting, but it would be much stronger if it said that "Most adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine" since "Many" doesn't mean much.
(C) tries to link thrill-seeking and impulsive behavior, which the argument already does.
(D) is irrelevant since we're interested in the kids' behaviors.
(E) is tempting, as it suggests there's a different causal connection, but there could be multiple ones at the same time (i.e. just because obesity causes depression doesn't mean it cannot also cause hair loss).

[cyruswhittaker]

I'm still having trouble understanding this argument.

Here's how I see the argument:

There's a correlation between impulsive behavior that is similair to adult thrill-seeking behavior and a particular gene variant that increases dopamine sensitivity. Thus, the gene variant causes thrill-seeking behavior.

Could you please help me to better understand why choice (B) is correct?

[noah]

You seem to grasp the argument.

Would it be a problem if the scientists who did the study were confusing what is actually simple carelessness with what they considered to be thrill-seeking?

That is what (B) is suggesting.

[andrea.feuer]

Dear Noah,

Can you please clarify what you mean by "This is a strange weaken question in that it does not do what most weaken questions do and attack an assumption - the connection between a premise and the conclusion"?

What do you mean that most weaken the questions attack an assumption? Can you please give me an example? I am having a lot of trouble with weakening type questions and what you are seeing seems really important, but I still can't understand it.

PS I do understand how this questions is weird and you are questioning the validity of the premise, but again I'm having trouble with the link to assumptions in general when it comes to weakening type questions.

Thank you very much.

[noah]

Hey Andrea, Thanks for the question. I probably couldn't do much better than this blog post that Dan wrote about weaken questions: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/blog/index ... questions/

Tell me if you still have some questions about that after reading this (and looking back at weaken questions that you've done and see how they fit into the patterns he describes).

[wj097]

(E) is tempting, as it suggests there's a different causal connection, but there could be multiple ones at the same time (i.e. just because obesity causes depression doesn't mean it cannot also cause hair loss).

Noah, I had a different reason for being tempted by (E) making it attractive as a weakener.

I saw (E) as supplying additional correlation that opens up possibility for an alternate cause. In other words, the other type of behavior stated in (E) being the common cause for gene variation and impulsive behavior in children.

Well, I could only convince myself in 2 ways to strike down (E).
1) A behavior causing gene variation can be bit unrealistic unless we are talking about some long term survival natural selection.. though still not convinced as I write...
2) Need to assume quite a bit for additional correlation in (E) to work against the causation concluded in the argument

What does your wisdom say??

Thx

[etwcho]

(E) is tempting, as it suggests there's a different causal connection, but there could be multiple ones at the same time (i.e. just because obesity causes depression doesn't mean it cannot also cause hair loss).

Noah, I had a different reason for being tempted by (E) making it attractive as a weakener.

I saw (E) as supplying additional correlation that opens up possibility for an alternate cause. In other words, the other type of behavior stated in (E) being the common cause for gene variation and impulsive behavior in children.

Well, I could only convince myself in 2 ways to strike down (E).
1) A behavior causing gene variation can be bit unrealistic unless we are talking about some long term survival natural selection.. though still not convinced as I write...
2) Need to assume quite a bit for additional correlation in (E) to work against the causation concluded in the argument

What does your wisdom say??

Thx

Hey wj097,
I picked E too, but I think for E to be correct, the conclusion must say that "such correlation proves that this gene variant has its ONLY causal relationship between inclination toward thrill seeking behavior"

But the actual conclusion leaves open for other possible causal relationships, and I think that's what Noah is trying to get to.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey etwcho, I like the thought process, but I'd look at it a little bit differently.

I just don't other types of behavior as possible alternative causes of thrill-seeking behavior. A gene varient is a possible cause of behavior, but how can other behavior cause thrill-seeking behavior. Genes seem like a realistic cause of behavior, but other behaviors? No.

When you seek alternative causes, make sure they're reasonable causes of the effect you're presented with in the stimulus.

[ptraye]

(A) is tempting, but it would be much stronger if it said that "Most adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine" since "Many" doesn't mean much.
(C) tries to link thrill-seeking and impulsive behavior, which the argument already does.
(D) is irrelevant since we're interested in the kids' behaviors.
(E) is tempting, as it suggests there's a different causal connection, but there could be multiple ones at the same time (i.e. just because obesity causes depression doesn't mean it cannot also cause hair loss).

if answer choice A said most instead of many, how would that affect the argument? would using most instead of many weaken the argument?

[ohthatpatrick]

The causal story being sold to us is ...

gene variant -> sensitivity to dopamine -> impulsive/thrill-seeking

To strengthen/weaken a causal story you can provide more evidence that cause and effect go hand in hand or do not.

It strengthens this author's story when we have people who have this gene variant, who have unusual sensitivity to dopamine, and who thus are inclined towards impulsive/thrill-seeking behavior.

It calls into question this author's story when we have people who have the cause but not the effect (they have the gene variant and are unusually sensitive to dopamine but they are NOT impulsive) or when people have the effect but not the cause (they are impulsive, but don't have the gene variant or sensitivity to dopamine).

This answer is giving us Effect w/o Cause: Impulsive behavior WITHOUT sensitivity to dopamine. But the quantity of 'many' is super weak, so if the answer choice said 'most' it would have much more force.

However, ultimately when you're trying to prove "X has a causal effect on Y", it's really only relevant to talk about people who have the Cause w/o Effect.

If I say that there is a causal relationship between studying hard and getting a high LSAT score, I'm saying that generally studying hard leads to a high score.

It doesn't really weaken that claim to learn that some people get high LSAT scores without doing any studying. (Effect w/o Cause)

It WOULD weaken that claim to learn that most people who study hard do not get a high LSAT score. (Cause w/o Effect)

It would barely weaken that claim to learn that many (i.e. 'some') people who study hard don't get a high score.

So I agree with Noah's 1st pass sentiment that 'many' is too weak for this idea to ever do much damage, but if we dig a little deeper (in order to answer you question), I think that even 'most' would not turn this into a strong answer.

Hope this helps.

[muriella]

Hi Noah - just to clarify then, on a more general level in terms of approach - there is a difference here between "questioning the validity of a premise" as you stated and attacking a premise, something we're not supposed to do, correct??? That's why i had initially eliminated B (the correct answer) on the first round - because it appeared to attack the premise. Is there a way to better distinguish between the two? it seems so subtle...

[tommywallach]

Hey Muriella,

Actually, there's no difference really. However, the VAST majority of questions do not play this game, so it's still worth accepting as a rule that you should always accept the premises as true.

The ONE thing you can keep on the lookout for is REALLY WEAK premises. For example:

Premise: Steve is great.
Conclusion: Steve will be promoted.

In this case, "greatness" is a really weak premise, because we don't know how it's being measured, or how it might be related to his actual job.

That's a pretty dumb example, but I hope you get my point. If the premise is particularly weak, the LSAT may (rarely) attack/question that premise.

-t

[lym]

Hey Muriella,

Actually, there's no difference really. However, the VAST majority of questions do not play this game, so it's still worth accepting as a rule that you should always accept the premises as true.

The ONE thing you can keep on the lookout for is REALLY WEAK premises. For example:

Premise: Steve is great.
Conclusion: Steve will be promoted.

In this case, "greatness" is a really weak premise, because we don't know how it's being measured, or how it might be related to his actual job.

That's a pretty dumb example, but I hope you get my point. If the premise is particularly weak, the LSAT may (rarely) attack/question that premise.

-t

Hi Tommy,

Thanks for the advice!

I've come up with an idea on how to discern premises that are attackable from the vast majority that should be accepted, but I'm not sure if I'm right about that:

you see that in this question the premise is actually QUOTED, i.e., asserted by someone as factual, but it really doesn't have to be.

like , in this case, this particular scientist could be wrong about what's compulsory and what's not.

Does that make any sense?

[bswise2]

I found another way to eliminate A that might be useful to someone.

The stimulus says that the gene variant "increases sensitivity to dopamine."

A says that "many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine."

We don't know anything about the original condition of a person's sensitivity to dopamine. It could be that dopamine sensitivity varies greatly in all adults. Some have low sensitivity, some have high, some have average... The stimulus only says that the gene variant increases sensitivity, not that it increases sensitivity beyond what is a usual level of sensitivity.

So the "many impulsive adults" in AC A could be the group of adults with an initial state of low sensitivity or even slightly below average sensitivity and still have their dopamine sensitivity increase, while it not being unusual. A assumes either that 1) all adult dopamine sensitivity levels are initially equivalent and increasing the sensitivity would be unusual OR 2) the adults whose dopamine sensitivity levels have increased were already at the maximum potential of dopamine sensitivity to consistent "usual," so that any increase would be therefore "unusual."

I don't know much about human biology, but consider the argument if, instead of dopamine sensitivity, it was testosterone levels. Testosterone levels vary in each human being based on a number of things--gender (men have significantly more testosterone than women), environment, supplements, activity, mental state, etc. Something can effectively increase the level of testosterone in a person without it being to an "unusual" level.

This is how I had to came to terms with eliminating A.

[BensonC202]

This is a strange weaken question in that it does not do what most weaken questions do and attack an assumption - the connection between a premise and the conclusion. Instead the answer correct answer calls into question the validity of a premise. For this argument, wrong answer analysis is key.

The argument states that there is a causal relationship between a specific gene variant and an inclination towards thrill-seeking. Why? Because children who tend to seek thrills (impulsive behavior) are twice as likely to have this gene variant. Pretty sound argument so far. However, (B) calls into question whether the researcher was really able to identify kids who seek thrills because that behavior is indistinguishable from other behaviors. So, if it turns out those kids were not thrill-seeking but were actually lacking self-control, for example, then the gene variant may cause that, not thrill-seeking (and my example assumes that lacking self-control is not the same as thrill-seeking!)

(A) is tempting, but it would be much stronger if it said that "Most adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine" since "Many" doesn't mean much.
(C) tries to link thrill-seeking and impulsive behavior, which the argument already does.
(D) is irrelevant since we're interested in the kids' behaviors.
(E) is tempting, as it suggests there's a different causal connection, but there could be multiple ones at the same time (i.e. just because obesity causes depression doesn't mean it cannot also cause hair loss).

Just would like to analyze both answer B & E more.

Apparently, by the correlations between different groups, a person attempts to prove the causality.

my first question is, in terms of B, if we add few words into it, such as " as for now ", " temporarily " , in a way that - It is temporarily not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from the other behavior, any chances that this answer not better weaken the argument than E does ?

My reasoning behind is that if it is just temporarily phenomenon, the could it be true that later on, the argument of proving the causation by correlation could still be airtight, since only if find methods to reliably distinguish the behaviors, there is still possibility that the argument be correct right ? Seems to me, arguing whether can we distinguish the causes can never really 100% truly weaken the causality based on that cause. For example, people who have been dieting from alpha oil gain 20 lbs more than others who haven't. so alpha oil causes people gain fat. But failed to distinguish alpha oil and all the other oil does not really disprove alpha oil " can not " make people gain weight isn't it ? Perhaps alpha oil truly does make people gain fat, it just that as for now we can not " distinguish " alpha oil with other oil.

my second question is, in terms of E, would not the answer opens the possibility that other types of behavior, also correlated with the gene variant study, could contradict the study of the scientist by introducing one type, few types, even 10 billions kinds of the behaviors, being consistent with anti-thrill seeking behaviors ? If it is the case, then would not it be true that the correlation indicated by the scientist is not " sufficient " to guarantee the causality whom concludes ?

Please help me out. I really appreciate all the supports.

[Misti Duvall]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Research indicates that kids who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking are twice as likely as other kids to have increased dopamine sensitivity. Therefore, there's a causal relationship between increased dopamine sensitivity and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Answer Anticipation:
Pay attention to the phrase "my research indicates." The premise, which we accept as true, is that the research indicates X. That does not, however, mean X is actually true; just that the research indicates it. For example, my research indicates that the sky is green. Ok, we accept that's my research finding. But evidence that the sky is actually blue (and/or that there was something wrong with my research process, etc) could call into question the application of my research to any conclusion.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Just because some impulsive adults aren't sensitive to dopamine doesn't make less likely a causal connection between the two. There could still be impulsive adults who do show dopamine sensitivity.

(B) Correct. This calls into question the application of the research to the conclusion. Again, the premise is only that the research indicates a connection. If it's not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior, then we can't use the research findings to support a causal connection in the conclusion.

(C) It was the kids who were described as impulsive, and the adults as thrill-seeking.

(D) Kind of going backwards. The argument is using the behavior of kids to make broader conclusions. The behavior of adults is not relevant.

(E) A correlation with other types of behavior doesn't weaken the connection with impulsive behavior. For ex, sugar causes me to like ice cream. It also causes me to like other kinds of candy, chocolate, etc.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Accept the premise as true, but accept it literally. "Reasearch shows the sky is green" is different from "the sky is green."

#officialexplanation