Q22 - Doctor: Being overweight has long

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: If you are slightly overweight, then you are healthy.
Evidence: People who are slightly overweigh are healthier than those who are considerably underweight.

Any prephrase?
Yikes! Where do we begin with such a bold, awful conclusion. "If you're slightly overweight, then I know for sure that you're healthy?!" All we considered in the research is a comparison between SLIGHTLY overweigh and CONSIDERABLY underweight. Well what if the HEALTHIEST categories are really slightly underweight or, least surprisingly, the PROPER weight? Furthermore, the research is presumably controlling for other variables that would affect health and saying "all other things being equal, slightly overweight is healthier than very underweight." Finally, who's to say that ANY of the people in the study were "healthy"? I can say that the Eiffel Tower is shorter than the Empire State Building, but that doesn't mean that the Eiffel Tower is "short".

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) The conclusion drawn is that "being slightly overweight is enough to be healthy". There is no medical opinion that says "being slightly overweight is NOT enough to be healthy".

B) True, we have no definition of "healthy", but that's not really our primary concern with THE REASONING. We're more concerned with why the author only considered two weight categories, when at least several more exist. And we're concerned with the move from "if people who have quality X are healthier than people who have quality Y, then quality X is all you need to be healthy."

C) Again, not a reasoning problem. And the author might actually be taking this into account. The terms "underweight" and "overweight" might be relative to a person's body type.

D) The conclusion indeed holds that "a person must be healthy, if that person is slightly overweight". In the premise, was there "a property that would suffice to make a person unhealthy"? No, there was nothing conditional in the premise. It was just a comparative correlation. (D) describes an argument that sounds more like "If you're underweight, then you're unhealthy. Thus people who are slightly overweight are bound to be healthy."

E) Yes! "Healthier" is a relative property. "Healthy" is an absolute property. Since the author had a premise about slightly overweight people being "healthier" and a conclusion about slightly overweight people being "healthy", this answer speaks to a problem with the REASONING, with the move from evidence to conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: Relative vs. absolute is a HUGE pattern throughout LR and RC. You'll see many incorrect RC and LR answers that are based on this shift. If the text was using relative language, then absolute language is usually irrelevant. And vice versa. For example, if I say "people with college degrees are usually more successful than people without" and proceed to conclude that "college degrees are valuable", you can't weaken that idea by saying "most people who don't have a college degree ARE SUCCESSFUL." Nobody cares. The issue isn't whether or not (absolute) they are successful. The issue is whether they might be MORE SUCCESSFUL if they had a college degree.

#officialexplanation

[bradleygirard]

I am not sure if it is better for me in the long run to continue making small mistakes like this one, which are easy to correct, but also easy to continue to make, or if it is better to make more fundamental mistakes that are harder to learn, but then probably wont happen as often. eh. Here goes.

We get an argument in the stimulus that despite the long linkage of being overweight with health problems, people who are slightly overweight are generally healthier than those that are considerably underweight. Therefore, to be healthy, it suffices to be slightly overweight.

Now the fact that this is a terrible argument should not be surprising to anyone. At least I hope not.
(a) while it may indeed do this, this is not the flaw in the argument.
(b) once again, it may not define 'healthy' but the definition of healthy is not the crux of this argument
(c) for this to be the right answer, the doctor would have to say something along the lines of weighing 180 pounds is healthy. I would actually say that he does take this into account.
(d) this was the attractive answer for me, however this criticism is too broad. He does not say that anyone who is not considerably underweight is healthy, and that is what this answer choice states.
(e) here it is. cannot for the life of me figure out why I overlooked this one. The relative property, i.e. being healthier, is confused with the absolute i.e. being healthy.
Let me know what you think.

[noah]

I am not sure if it is better for me in the long run to continue making small mistakes like this one, which are easy to correct, but also easy to continue to make, or if it is better to make more fundamental mistakes that are harder to learn, but then probably wont happen as often. eh. Here goes.

We get an argument in the stimulus that despite the long linkage of being overweight with health problems, people who are slightly overweight are generally healthier than those that are considerably underweight. Therefore, to be healthy, it suffices to be slightly overweight.

Now the fact that this is a terrible argument should not be surprising to anyone. At least I hope not.
(a) while it may indeed do this, this is not the flaw in the argument.
(b) once again, it may not define 'healthy' but the definition of healthy is not the crux of this argument
(c) for this to be the right answer, the doctor would have to say something along the lines of weighing 180 pounds is healthy. I would actually say that he does take this into account.
(d) this was the attractive answer for me, however this criticism is too broad. He does not say that anyone who is not considerably underweight is healthy, and that is what this answer choice states.
(e) here it is. cannot for the life of me figure out why I overlooked this one. The relative property, i.e. being healthier, is confused with the absolute i.e. being healthy.
Let me know what you think.

Good write-up!

I thought (D) was quite tempting as well, and I think what's tricky about (E) is that it uses language one would not expect for that answer. This question points out a potential problem with only relying on pre-phrasing the answer. I figured the flaw was that the argument says the overweight folks tend to be healthier, but doesn't establish causation.

But, I'd really be taking up space on the internet to say much more, as your write-up was great. You may want to try to come up with analogies as an exercise in mastering this stuff. And about your choice of small mistakes or fundamental ones, definitely go for the small ones!

[shirando21]

This argument is so weird. I knew there's something wrong with healthy and healthier, but did not reach relative property and absolute property. then unfortunately, picked B ......

does the word "suffice" suggest it was taken as "absolute"?

[noah]

does the word "suffice" suggest it was taken as "absolute"?

"Suffice" indicates that it's sufficient.

[xinglipku]

Can we equal "slightly overweight" to "not underweight"? If we see it this way, the stimulus says "slightly overweight---->Healthy", and answer choice (D) says "not underweight--->healthy"?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Can we equal "slightly overweight" to "not underweight"? If we see it this way, the stimulus says "slightly overweight---->Healthy", and answer choice (D) says "not underweight--->healthy"?

I'm comfortable with saying that being slightly overweight would imply that one is not underweight. However, I'm not comfortable saying that answer choice (D) says, "not underweight ---> healthy."

The reason is that the stimulus never gives us enough information to support that claim that there is a property that exists that would suffice to make a person "unhealthy." There are definitely linkages and strong correlations implied, but nothing so strong to suggest sufficiency.

[nflamel69]

I eliminated B on the fact that if said if a person lacks a property that makes them unhealthy. So what do we know from the premise that can make a person unhealthy? Being overweight. and thats all we know from the premise. So then it says if you don't have that property (being overweight), you will be healthy. that's not what the conclusion said.

[gliev001]

I can honestly say that answer choice (E) was not even in my radar when choosing my answer during my timed practice. But I noticed that there isn't really a clear cut explanation as to why (E) is the correct answer.

SO here goes:

(E) states : "mistakes a relative property for one that is absolute"

The relative property refers to slightly overweight people being healthier RELATIVE to considerably underweight people. The argument then erroneously assumes from that relationship that for overall health, it is conducive to being slightly overweight. However, someone who is slightly overweight may be in a better state of health than someone who is considerably overweight, yet can still be unhealthy compared to the general population.

Hope this helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

"People who are slightly overweight are healthier than those who are considerably underweight
-->
It suffices to be slightly overweight to be healthy"
"Question Type: Flaw

My Thought Process: Tough question if you gloss over those key distinctions! Here is what the argument is saying: ""person type A is healthier than person type B. Therefore, person type A is healthy."" Look at that again: ""person type A is HEALTHIER ... person A is HEALTHY."" See what happened there? The argument is taking a relative and making it into an absolute. Here is an analogy: ""The 1994 IBM computer with 1kb of RAM and a 32kb harddrive is faster than that 1989 iMac with lesser properties. Therefore, the IBM is fast."" Or you could also try this: ""My younger brother is older than my youngest brother. Therefore, my younger brother is old."" Again, we are making statements about one thing in comparison to another then taking these statements and making them into absolutes. That logically sucks.
"
(A) Where did these medical opinions come from? This is basically an automatic elimination.

(B) This is probably true. However, this is not the FLAW of the argument. Remember what the goal is. We need to find the flaw. The argument is not flawed because it never defines "healthy." Even if it never does define healthy the argument is still okay! For example, what if I said the following: "The bed is more comfortable than the chair. Therefore, the bed is comfortable" I never really defined what it means to be "comfortable." Comfortable could mean different things for different people but the flaw is still the same.

(C) Eh. This may be true I guess...but fairly moot. The argument's premises is actually talking in relatives (underweight/overweight) rather than absolutes. We are not talking about "200 lbs" or "100 lbs" or something like that. Thus, maybe the author does actually take into account that the appropriate weight varies from person to person. Either way, none of this matters. This is not the flaw of the argument!

(D) Ooooh very tempting! The argument is saying this: Overweight --> Healthy and thus ~Healthy --> ~Overweight. Ok but the answer choice seems to be saying ~Underweight --> Healthy and thus ~Healthy --> Underweight. However, just because a person is not underweight doesn't mean that they are overweight. This is a tough answer choice and it is one that I would probably not be able to eliminate nearly as quickly as the others.

(E) Bingo! This is very clearly correct once you fully understand the argument. It makes the relative property (being healthier than another kind of person) for the absolute one (being healthy, period.) Not too much else to say here!

[tommywallach]

Great posts, Walt! Thanks for your involvement on the forum!

-t

[tiggy]

Before I post my first comment (after lurking on this site for over a year) I would really like to thank all of you who help others with your replies and insightful thoughts. This manhattanlsat community is truly a great source for those aiming to truly grasp the concepts tested on this exam.

Now the way I see this question is: we are told that those who are slightly overweight are healthier than those who are considerably underweight. However, this does not mean that those who are considerably underweight are "unhealthy". Only that they are less healthy than those who are slightly overweight.

D. Says if you lack a property that makes you "unhealthy" then you must be healthy. Some might see this as saying that if you are lacking a property that would make you unhealthy, then you are lacking being "considerably underweight" and you are therefore "slightly overweight". This of course does not have to be true because you can be many things in between, like for example just underweight. And D is wrong because the passage never actually says that you are either one or the other, so this cannot be the flaw.

Another mistake (and in my opinion the most important one) is to think that if you are "considerably underweight" then you are unhealthy. I think this is a big assumption to make on our part because we do not know what would "suffice to make the person unhealthy" since we are only told that being slightly overweight is healthier than being considerably underweight. So this cannot be the flaw of the passage because we do not see the author make this assumption. Rather, the answer choice preys that we think the author is making this assumption.

I would really appreciate if one of the Manhattan tutors (or other members of this board) would give more feedback on this train of thought. Hope my explanation is correct and actually helps someone out!