PT 26 Section 2 Number 12 Cancer and Fat intake

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

PT 26 Section 2 Number 12 Cancer and Fat intake

Postby JesusChrist » Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:13 am

I just did the LR from PT 26 Section 2. For number 12 there's a question about cancer rates and fat intake. The correct answer has something to do with environmental pollution in that country.

I actually immediately eliminated that one from contention because it seemed to unrelated. but it turns out that that is the correct answer. Can someone explain why this is? How was I supposed to equate environmental pollution with cancer rates.

perry24
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:31 am

Re: PT 26 Section 2 Number 12 Cancer and Fat intake

Postby perry24 » Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:36 am

What you want to look for is something that suggests that there is something else that causes this correlation. If the countries with high fat intake have higher pollution levels, then maybe it is the pollution that causes the high cancer incidence and not the fat intake that causes it. Thus, D would make sense.

Choices A is incorrect, if anything it strengthens the argument.

Choice B is incorrect because the question does not make any connection between wealthy and cancer incidence.

Choice C is incorrect because cancer can be a prominent cause of death in a country and the incidence could still be low if say, it was the only cause of death in the country.

Choice E is incorrect because the question talks about the AVERAGE intake and its relationship with the incidence of cancer which does not rule out that an INDIVIDUAL can still have a low intake and not get cancer.

Hope that is clear.

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

Re: PT 26 Section 2 Number 12 Cancer and Fat intake

Postby JesusChrist » Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:49 am

Hmm, I guessed C because it seemed like it would counter the results of the stimulus. But I see the reasoning now.

Isn't D relying a bit too much on outside information then? It seems to me that knowing that pollution is able to cause cancer is outside of common knowledge. And you would have to have that bit of knowledge to get this one because the answer choice doesn't specify anything about how pollution could be connected to cancer or fat intake.

I kinda get why its the answer, but it feels like a really weak way to weaken something. Especially for a question that's numbered 12. What am I missing in my reasoning above ^?

perry24
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:31 am

Re: PT 26 Section 2 Number 12 Cancer and Fat intake

Postby perry24 » Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:53 am

I agree with you, it is a very weak way to weaken a question. For sure, I would not have chosen it if there was another better answer.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Pozzo, SweetTort and 8 guests