Q8 - Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten

[deburma]

Hi,

A real quick question. I picked (B) for this question as I thought (B) provided a more relevant and direct information to the reason provided by the prompt (...because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.).

I understand the the answer given by LSAC (E) does weaken the argument as the phrase says 'hardly any lobsters', pointing to the fact that there is still possibility that some lobsters can contract gill diseases. And, if such can make some human ill, then it's not a pointless proposal.

Do you think the reason why the answer is (E) over (B) is 1) the phrasing of (E) as listed above and 2) the phrasing of (B) of 'open ocean' is not necessary 'many kilometers offshore'?

I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks.

[aileenann]

I like your suggestions, but I would say that there is an easier reason to eliminate (B) and choose (E). Remember, we want to say that there is a point to the proposal. The fact is in the argument (and we cannot later assume it to be otherwise) that the sewage doesn't matter so far as the lobsters themselves are concerned - they are just fine living in it. Therefore, more information about the lobsters is probably not going to weaken the claim that the proposal is doing nothing. Rather, if it doesn't matter to lobsters, we need to know if the proposal matters to anyone or anything else - which is precisely what (E) tells us.

Does that make sense?

[geverett]

I got this question wrong on the PT I just took, but got it right when I did the test untimed. I picked D when I took the test timed which is a very deceitful answer choice, but ultimately a flawed answer choice. Here's a quick rundown on the question.

Lobsters and others sea critters can get gill disease from sewage being dumped into their habitats. There is a current proposal which would divert sewage away from lobsters habitats. While this would reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, this proposal is pointless because most lobsters don't live long enough to be affected by gill disease.

Question: Weaken this argument.

Prephrase: Okay so the author has made the argument that the proposal to divert sewage away from lobster habitats is pointless because the lobsters die before they can be affected by gill disease which is one of the effects of the sewage. The author is basically assuming that there are no other adverse effects of the sewage being dumped into the harbor other then lobsters contracting gill disease which is not really an adverse affect since the lobster die before they experience any of the negative consequences of gill disease anyway. We need to weaken this by showing that there is another negative consequence to the sewage being dumped in the harbor that the author has not considered. I go to the questions with this in mind.

(A) Irrelevant. We do not care about other contaminants besides sewage. The argument is only centered around supporting the claim that diverting sewage away from the harbor would be pointless, and does not concern itself with other contaminants. Get rid of it.
(B) Irrelevant. The argument in the stimulus is only concerned with lobsters caught in the harbor. Whether they live longer in open ocean, harbors, or in a tank at red lobster is irrelevant to the scope of the argument. Get rid of it.
(C) Who cares? The conduciveness of different environments to lobsters breeding habits is wholly irrelevant to this argument. Get rid of it.
(D) This is tempting. It's very easy to make the assumption here that if you cannot detect the gill disease and you eat a lobster that has gill disease that it could make a person sick. However, that would be trying to make this answer choice say something that it's just not saying. We know that most lobsters die before gill disease negatively affects them, but we cannot infer from that statement that if someone eats a lobster or crustacean that had contracted gill disease that it will be harmful to that person. Get rid of it.
(E) This makes the assumption that answer choice D tries to trick you into making explicit. If lobsters that have contracted gill disease can be harmful to humans who consume them then this would weaken the conclusion of the argument that the proposal to divert sewage from the harbor is pointless. We have a winner!

[shaynfernandez]

I just don't understand where we are getting the fact that gill disease is harmful to humans. All the passage says about human life is "Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill disease when sewage contaminates their water. It is talking about the lobster, if answer (F) said "space aliens see the gill disease on the lobster and start to vomit". To me answer (E) is the most out of scope answer of all the choices.

[timmydoeslsat]

I just don't understand where we are getting the fact that gill disease is harmful to humans. All the passage says about human life is "Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill disease when sewage contaminates their water. It is talking about the lobster, if answer (F) said "space aliens see the gill disease on the lobster and start to vomit". To me answer (E) is the most out of scope answer of all the choices.

You are right that the stimulus does not state it.

The answer choice brings this idea into the fold. If it is true that humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases, does that weaken the conclusion of the proposal being pointless?

Absolutely.

The conclusion of the proposal being pointless was reached because of three premises.

1) Lobsters more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water.

2) Proposal would reroute the local sewage away from the harbor where the lobsters are caught.

3) Almost no lobsters live long enough to be harmed by gill diseases.

If the author were to say that the proposal is pointless concerning lobsters, the author may have a point.

However, the author uses the big statement of "the proposal is pointless."

If it is true that humans can become sick eating these gill diseased lobsters, then the proposal is no longer pointless.

[LSAT-Chang]

If the author were to say that the proposal is pointless concerning lobsters, the author may have a point.

However, the author uses the big statement of "the proposal is pointless."

If it is true that humans can become sick eating these gill diseased lobsters, then the proposal is no longer pointless.

Hey timmydoeslsat, I totally agree with your above point. However, could I briefly walk you through my thought process on how I eliminated (E) and instead chose a different answer?

So basically, I had the same conclusion + premise as you did. However, what I still don't agree with is why we are concerned about humans. The first sentence tells us that lobsters eaten by US are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. OooKAY... but the last sentence explicitly tells us that HARDLY ANY lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases -- so they basically WON'T contract gill diseases even if TONS of sewage is dumped on their face since they will DIE anyway!.. RIGHT??? so how is it possible that these gill diseases that were not present in the lobsters all of a sudden become present when humans consume it? like seriously? (E) says that humans become ill as a resut of "eating lobsters WITH GILL DISEASES" but hello.. the author just said hardly any lobsters will even be alive! I mean unless we have to make another assumption that these lobsters can contract gill diseases even when dead -- which makes no sense to me, I can't buy (E)... If (E) said something like, "humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters that don't have gill diseases" -- then MAYBE.. but I so don't get how (E) weakens it.... I think I'm just really losing it right now since I have been doing so well and all of a sudden starting last night -- I have been getting every single problem wrong (it's like I forgot how to solve these problems and I'm seeing it for the first time in my life).. Oh and just incase you wanted to know what I picked, I picked (A)...

I picked (A) because if contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters, then they could be contracting other diseases from the sewage that would be harmful when humans consume it -- so the proposal is NOT pointless!

[timmydoeslsat]

OooKAY... but the last sentence explicitly tells us that HARDLY ANY lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases -- so they basically WON'T contract gill diseases even if TONS of sewage is dumped on their face since they will DIE anyway!.. RIGHT??? so how is it possible that these gill diseases that were not present in the lobsters all of a sudden become present when humans consume it? like seriously?

There's no crying in baseball! There's no crying on weaken questions!

The part I quoted above is a statement you made that is simply not correct.

The last sentence of the stimulus does tells us that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be HARMED by those (gill) diseases. However, YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY WON'T CONTRACT THE DISEASE.

The stimulus tells us that these lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed by the diseases. It is not saying that they don't live long enough to CONTRACT it

So when you look at A with this in mind...

A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.

Who cares that other contaminants are equally harmful? This does nothing to our argument that the proposal to of rerouting sewage is pointless.

I picked (A) because if contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters, then they could be contracting other diseases from the sewage that would be harmful when humans consume it -- so the proposal is NOT pointless!

The answer choice says contaminants other than sewage. This argument is talking about rerouting sewage. This does not weaken our conclusion of the proposal to reroute sewage as being pointless.

[LSAT-Chang]

The last sentence of the stimulus does tells us that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be HARMED by those (gill) diseases. However, YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY WON'T CONTRACT THE DISEASE.

The stimulus tells us that these lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed by the diseases. It is not saying that they don't live long enough to CONTRACT it

For some very weird reason, I thought if lobsters contracted the disease then they would be harmed by the disease.. "contract = harmed" BAD assumption made on my part! Thanks for pointing that out for me!! I don't know why I made that assumption! I guess I was just really exhausted from too much LSAT prepping.

[geverett]

Timmy, you are killin' it! Great explanation!

[shaynfernandez]

Great explanation. Regardless, I would be furious if i had taken this test date and this was my number 8 question. Talk about nit picky language and reasoning.

[maryadkins]

Nice discussion and explanations! Sounds like we're all clear now... a frustrating question, this one.

[shirando21]

In this case, the lobsters carry gill diseases, they are not harmed, but people are harmed by eating these gill disease carrying lobsters.

Finally, I understood it.

Thanks a lot, Timmy~

[MatthewS512]

I had trouble with the function of the word "harmed." I assumed that when they were harmed, they contracted the disease. I failed to think about how they can still have the disease, but not be harmed by it. Therefore, E makes more sense to me. If they are not harmed by it, they will continue to live until they eventually die from the disease or by people eating them. If people eat them, then they are harmed provided me with the answer.

[DavidM254]

Hi All,

I had an issue achieving peace of mind from the logic used by others to prove that answer choice E.) is better than answer choice B.), but for those that were not satisfied by the reasoning others provided to make this distinction, I offer the following:

Answer B.) is highly appealing because it seems more in scope than answer E.). It also seems like the potential for hurting the open ocean lobsters is still something to consider if the people go forward with the proposal. HOWEVER, we are weakening the reasoning behind ditching the proposal, and if the persons in question choose to ditch the proposal then sewage will not be dispersed into the ocean and it will not hurt open ocean crustaceans.

I hope this clarifies why answer choice B.) is not actually weakening the decision to ditch the proposal. It can actually be used to strengthen the reasoning for ditching the proposal.

[smiller]

DavidM254, you made some good points about the possibility of (B) weakening the argument.

Just to be clear, the actual conclusion of the argument is that the proposal is pointless. That's not exactly the same as saying the proposal should be ditched. It's close, but not exactly the same. That difference doesn't end up playing a role in this question, but the LSAT sometimes tests our ability to read with this level of specificity.

It's also worth noting exactly what choice (B) states about lobsters in the open ocean. It states that they live longer than lobsters in industrial harbors. This doesn't mean that they live long enough to be harmed by gill diseases. And do we know that the harbor mentioned in the stimulus is an "industrial" harbor? We don't. So choice (B) really has several strikes against it.