Q21 - Monroe, despite his generally poor

[rshapiro14]

I'm having some trouble figuring out this question. At first I thought it was pretty straight forward, he eats the peppers with three different things and becomes ill each time. But the question says at the end it is SOLELY because of the hot peppers that monroe became ill. I took this to mean that the ONLY reason monore got ill, and the only reason he could have gotten ill was because he ate the peppers, so in conditional reasoning I figured:

Monroe becomes ill ----> Monroe ate peppers.

Because you know that if monroe is ill, he MUST have eaten peppers, because it is the SOLE reason he cold have become ill at Tip-Top. At first I thought well maybe there is something else at Tip-Top that he could have gotten sick from but it wasn't in any of the other food he tried, but then the stem also says that Monroe's conclusion is correct, so I took that to mean that he could get sick from nothing else at Tip-Top.

Isn't answer (B) the mistaken reversal of this? Hot peppers ---> monroe becomes ill.

I picked (C) because it = No hot peppers -----> monroe is not ill, because it's the contrapositive of "Monroe becomes ill ----> Monroe ate peppers"




Now I'm thinking that I just looked waaay too far into this question, and had I not gotten into the CR I would have picked B and gotten it right. Am I missing something here?

Thanks for your help.

[timmydoeslsat]

I would view this argument as more cause and effect in nature.

Monroe goes from a correlation to a causation, which is most definitely flawed. All three meals at the restaurant happened to have hot peppers in them. He also ate pretty big portions, at least for him, so that is another possible factor in this.

We have a correlation (relationship) with hot peppers and being sick. However, we do not know that the hot peppers caused it. However, Monroe claims that the hot peppers caused the effect of him becoming ill.

In this question, if we accept his conclusion as true and the evidence he presented, we can expect to be tested on this causation issue.

Answer choice B does that. If Monroe had chosen to eat that meal with the hot peppers, guess what? What does the hot peppers cause!!! Illness!

[timmydoeslsat]

I think the best way to answer your question is for me to ask you questions!

This question stem for #21 is saying for us to accept Monroe's conclusion as true and his support for it as true.

So, while we know that the conclusion he reached in his argument is flawed, this question requires that we actually ACCEPT it as true.

This is a rare question stem. I cannot recall off of the top of my head a question like this. It does not come up often to say the least.

With that out of the way, we need to think about what his conclusion is.

His conclusion is that it was ONLY the hot peppers that made him sick.

We knew that it was faulty of him to reach that conclusion. I have many ideas for why that was faulty, as do you.

1) Ate more than usual.
2) Maybe it was the utensils he used in eating the food, or the plate. Maybe only his utensils were tainted.
3) Maybe a friend played a trick on him and doctored his food while he wasn't looking.
4) Maybe it was a bacteria on the cutting board in the kitchen that caused his illness.

The point is, Monroe saw that the only food all three meals he ate had in common, was those hot peppers.

Read Monroe's conclusion, "solely due to hot peppers that he BECAME ill."

Causal word alert!!!! Monroe said BECAME. That is telling us that he says "Hot peppers caused me to become ill."

We are to accept this conclusion and evidence as true, and the question stem then asks us essentially a "must be true/most strongly supported" type of question.

Read choice C. If Monroe ate another meal with hot peppers, then he would have became ill.

Isn't that a must be true situation?

Isn't it true that hot peppers caused Monroe to become ill? Yes it is true because the question stem told us to accept his conclusion as true.

Well, if his conclusion is true, that hot peppers CAUSED him to become ill, then what can we expect if Monroe eats those hot peppers?

For him to become ill!

And that is what C is telling us. If Monroe eats a meal with hot peppers, he will become ill afterwards.

Must be true!

[wguwguwgu]

for question 21: I understand why C is wrong, because the pizza could have hot pepper in/on it too. And I agree B is correct for sure. but why is A wrong? "If Monroe's conclusion and evidence are correct", isn't A a contrapositive statement from Monroe's conclusion?

Many thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Answer choice A is not the contrapositive of the reasoning used.

The reasoning we have here is if hot peppers ---> feel ill

Of course it was not very good reasoning on Monroe's part. We had a correlation and he concluded cause.

But, as this question stem wants, if his conclusion is correct, and the evidence is true...that means that indeed the hot peppers are causing him to be ill.

Answer choice A says: ~Hot peppers ---> ~ill

That is negated logic and is not valid.

The contrapositive of his reasoning would be, ~ill ---> ~consume hot peppers

[nlynes]

Why is C wrong? If the peppers are the sole reason he is getting sick, if there are no peppers then wont he not get sick?

Thanks,

[timmydoeslsat]

So we do know that:

hot peppers ---> sick

But we do not know that:

~hot peppers ---> ~sick

The next time he goes, perhaps he eats bad salmon?

He did not have salmon the last time he ate. It can be true that the sole cause of his illness last time was the hot peppers, yet it can still be true that other things can could have made him ill as well. Things that he did not even eat.

B is clearly the answer here.

If the conclusion is true, that hot peppers was the sole cause of the illness. Then you would expect the next meal he had with hot peppers to make him have the effect of feeling ill.

[jolieyang]

I just want to add to this discussion the importance of understanding the differences between causality and conditional statements.

The conclusion, "Monroe concludes that it is solely due to Tip Top's hot peppers that he became ill" should not be confused as a conditional statement (solely being the same thing as only). Monroe is stating that it is a causal relationship and the question stem says we have to assume this is true. (you will diagram this causality as hot peppers --> illness) Therefore, to correctly answer a "must be true" question, we have to find an answer that shows this causality. Here are few factors that you have to keep in mind about causality in order to successfully show this relationship (this is explained in detail in powerscore's LR bible on page 200. I am reiterating their statements)

1) Temporal relationship: causal statements imply that one must happen first and the effect happens afterwards. conditional statements do not imply such a thing (another reason to not think like this is a conditional statement!)

2) Connection between events is different: a causal statement implies that the events are related, ie hot peppers made Monroe sick. X caused Y. X made Y happen. However, this is not necessarily the case for a conditional statement. The book provides the example, "Before the war can end, I must eat this ice cream cone." It is not the case that the war ending caused me to eat this ice cream cone, just that it has to occur.

In conclusion, although we see the flaw in Monroe's reasoning in saying that the hot peppers caused him to be sick and not an alternate cause, we have to assume his causal reasoning as true. Therefore, we need to find answers that reflect a causal relationship and NOT a conditional relationship.

Hope this helps!

[wguwguwgu]

Thanks Timmy, Jolie et al for your comments! I want to know what you think about this AC if it were also among the choices:

If Monroe goes to Tip-Top again to celebrate his LSAT score and eats a "porc a la Mexicaine" with a lot of hot peppers in it, he will surely get sick again.

Would you guys think it's correct?

The reason I'm asking is that after rereading the question and your comments, I now feel that the statement of Monroe is neither real causal nor real conditional -- it's not a general statement at all, but rather merely a summary of 3 PAST experiences in one certain restaurant and can not warrant any generalization that would extend to a future event. Also, Monroe did not mean to give a generalization, but only said "concludes that it is due to hp that he becAme ill. So A & C are wrong.

That said, when we talk about passed events that do fall into the coverage of his statement/summary, I think it is OK to treat it as a kind of restricted conditional. illness ---> must have had hp.

Another hypothetical AC, modified from D:

Suppose Monroe ate a salad at the beginning of the second meal that did not have any hot pepper in it, it is certain that this salad had nothing to do with his getting ill afterwards.

I think this would be correct, no?

[timmydoeslsat]

I think Jolie is correct in most of the analysis. The one thing I would state is that if you indeed have a cause established, you can have a conditional relationship.

It is the idea of going from a conditional relationship to establishing cause that is a huge problem.

If it is established that A causes B. We know A ---> B

If we know A ---> B, we have no idea the A caused B or if B caused A or if there is any causal relationship at all.

This question stem is giving us information that establishes the hot peppers is the sole cause for Monroe becoming ill. So this gives us support for the idea that his next meal with hot peppers will cause him to be ill.

So you are correct in your first example with the hot peppers.

However, we do not have have support for ~hot peppers ---> ~sick

Who knows what else makes Monroe sick. I can't state for sure that a lack of hot peppers will ensure illness.

The conclusion is indeed a causal one and this question stem of #21 tells us to accept that conclusion as true and build off of this argument to deduce an outcome.

[acechaowang]

I agree with wguwguwgu's comment. If this is really a general nontricky causal question, then it would mean answer C, which states that without the hotpepers(the cause), the effect(illness) does not occur either. So it will follow that C is also correct. So the correct way I think to answer this question correctly is that the causal relation is limited in the scope provided(the three meals at the restaurant) and nothing else. B apparently corresponds to this.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I agree with wguwguwgu's comment. If this is really a general nontricky causal question, then it would mean answer C, which states that without the hotpepers(the cause), the effect(illness) does not occur either. So it will follow that C is also correct.

I think I see it differently. The argument does claim that the hot peppers made Monroe sick, but it does not suggest that hot peppers are the only thing that could have made him sick. The tricky thing on this one is that it is a "Most Strongly Supported" question. The answer choice should have support from the stimulus. If the stimulus implies that the hot peppers are what made him sick, then answer choice (B) is supported. But the stimulus does not suggest that nothing else could have made Monroe ill, just that nothing else had made Monroe ill.

Answer choice (C) goes too far by suggesting that the only way Monroe would become ill is by first having eaten hot peppers. This is very much negated logic.

Hope that helps!

[mcculljm2002]

Been struggling with why C is wrong, and I think I may have it: we know that on the evenings he got sick, the peppers (and only the peppers--NOT the pizza!) caused him to become sick. So on those nights, the conditions were definitely such that consumption of the peppers would cause illness.

However, we do not know with utter certainty that on a future night the sausage pizza will not cause Monroe to become ill (recipe could change, sausage might not agree with something eaten that afternoon, etc.).

[wj097]

I agree with wguwguwgu's comment. If this is really a general nontricky causal question, then it would mean answer C, which states that without the hotpepers(the cause), the effect(illness) does not occur either. So it will follow that C is also correct.

I think I see it differently. The argument does claim that the hot peppers made Monroe sick, but it does not suggest that hot peppers are the only thing that could have made him sick. The tricky thing on this one is that it is a "Most Strongly Supported" question. The answer choice should have support from the stimulus. If the stimulus implies that the hot peppers are what made him sick, then answer choice (B) is supported. But the stimulus does not suggest that nothing else could have made Monroe ill, just that nothing else had made Monroe ill.

Answer choice (C) goes too far by suggesting that the only way Monroe would become ill is by first having eaten hot peppers. This is very much negated logic.

Hope that helps!

From the way the conclusion is written (it is "solely" due to hotpepper, that he got ill), I read it as if-and-only-if...would you not???

Thx

[Raymond.Keimer]

Honestly, this was the most confusing post to follow.

Sometimes it seems like people are arguing C is correct and other times B.

I saw the correct answer (B) because it stuck the closest to Monroe's evidence which is, he ate hot peppers at all three meals and conclusion which is, the peppers were the sole cause of his illness

A) incorrect because we cannot say with certainty that at any given time Monroe won't get sick as long as it doesn't have peppers. As "Tommydoeslsat" mentioned, he could get sick from utensils or some other cause.

C) incorrect because we don't know what could happen next time, only what Monroe claimed happened in this isolated situation.

D) totally out of scope because it can't be directly referred to in the stimulus

E) unsupported by the stimulus

The answer seemed to jump out because all other answer choices weren't adequately backed up by the stimulus.

[christine.defenbaugh]

There's a lot of great discussion here all! I'd like to clear up some confusion about how to approach this slightly unusual inference question.

Inference questions will commonly have a list of facts that we must accept as true. This question has a distinct argument core, which means that we must accept the conclusion as if it were an additional fact. Let's get a sense of those facts:

1) XL sausage pizza + hot peppers = he got ill
2) AYCE fried shrimp + hot peppers = he got ill
3) 2 giant meatball sandwiches + hot peppers = he got ill
4) only food in common was hot peppers
5) hot peppers were sole cause of illness

So we accept that in those three instances, hot peppers were the cause of the illness, and they were the only cause of the illness. But is this a conditional relationship? Is this even a universal causal relationship? Can we say that this relationship between hot peppers and illness extends to other situations, other meals, the past, the future?

No! We have to accept that for those three meals hot peppers were the cause and the only cause of the illness. But there's nothing to indicate this is a general rule that will always hold true. Just because hot peppers made Monroe sick yesterday does not necessarily mean they will make him sick tomorrow - nor does it mean they made him sick last year.

Similarly, just because we accept that nothing else in the meals made Monroe sick on these occasions does not necessarily mean that those things won't make him sick in the future.

It's great to be on the lookout for conditional relationships, but conditionals are generally rules that are written as true all the time. "If I go dancing, then I'll get home late" means that that is what always must happen. If last Friday, I went dancing and it caused me to get home late, we can't leap to the blanket rule that it will always happen! We only know it happened once!

The only answer supportable with this limited information is (B). Since we know that hot peppers were absolutely the cause of his illness that particular time, switching the shrimp for chicken and keeping the hot peppers for that particular meal will mean he still gets sick.


We Don't Know That!
(A) We only know that nothing else in those three particular meals, on those days, can make Monroe sick. There could be other ingredients that make him sick that weren't in the original meals.

(C) We simply don't know a thing about the future. We only know what caused his illness in those three specific meals. Just because we accept that the pizza did not cause his illness last time doesn't mean it's impossible for it to make him sick in the future!

(D) We know nothing about the distant past! We have to accept that the shrimp didn't cause his illness these times, but we have no idea whether he's eaten shrimp before, or whether it ever made him sick.

(E) There's no information about where else Monroe might or might not have eaten hot peppers on other occasions.



Note that the wrong answers are about: the distant past, the future, other locations, and other foods. Since what we know is limited to those specific meals on those specific days, all of this is out of bounds.

Before before getting swept off your feet by a charming conditional or causal relationship, be sure to ask yourself if it is something that is always true, or if it only applies for certain in limited circumstances.

Please let me know if this helps clear up confusion about this tricky question!

[Mab6q]

There's a lot of great discussion here all! I'd like to clear up some confusion about how to approach this slightly unusual inference question.

Inference questions will commonly have a list of facts that we must accept as true. This question has a distinct argument core, which means that we must accept the conclusion as if it were an additional fact. Let's get a sense of those facts:

1) XL sausage pizza + hot peppers = he got ill
2) AYCE fried shrimp + hot peppers = he got ill
3) 2 giant meatball sandwiches + hot peppers = he got ill
4) only food in common was hot peppers
5) hot peppers were sole cause of illness

So we accept that in those three instances, hot peppers were the cause of the illness, and they were the only cause of the illness. But is this a conditional relationship? Is this even a universal causal relationship? Can we say that this relationship between hot peppers and illness extends to other situations, other meals, the past, the future?

No! We have to accept that for those three meals hot peppers were the cause and the only cause of the illness. But there's nothing to indicate this is a general rule that will always hold true. Just because hot peppers made Monroe sick yesterday does not necessarily mean they will make him sick tomorrow - nor does it mean they made him sick last year.

Similarly, just because we accept that nothing else in the meals made Monroe sick on these occasions does not necessarily mean that those things won't make him sick in the future.

It's great to be on the lookout for conditional relationships, but conditionals are generally rules that are written as true all the time. "If I go dancing, then I'll get home late" means that that is what always must happen. If last Friday, I went dancing and it caused me to get home late, we can't leap to the blanket rule that it will always happen! We only know it happened once!

The only answer supportable with this limited information is (B). Since we know that hot peppers were absolutely the cause of his illness that particular time, switching the shrimp for chicken and keeping the hot peppers for that particular meal will mean he still gets sick.


We Don't Know That!
(A) We only know that nothing else in those three particular meals, on those days, can make Monroe sick. There could be other ingredients that make him sick that weren't in the original meals.

(C) We simply don't know a thing about the future. We only know what caused his illness in those three specific meals. Just because we accept that the pizza did not cause his illness last time doesn't mean it's impossible for it to make him sick in the future!

(D) We know nothing about the distant past! We have to accept that the shrimp didn't cause his illness these times, but we have no idea whether he's eaten shrimp before, or whether it ever made him sick.

(E) There's no information about where else Monroe might or might not have eaten hot peppers on other occasions.



Note that the wrong answers are about: the distant past, the future, other locations, and other foods. Since what we know is limited to those specific meals on those specific days, all of this is out of bounds.

Before before getting swept off your feet by a charming conditional or causal relationship, be sure to ask yourself if it is something that is always true, or if it only applies for certain in limited circumstances.

Please let me know if this helps clear up confusion about this tricky question!

Christine to the rescue.