PT53 S3 Q9 help please (many vs. some)

gerbal
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 12:42 am

PT53 S3 Q9 help please (many vs. some)

Postby gerbal » Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:47 am

Hi. I think I got the gist of the argument, but I hesitated on picking (E) because it said "many" and ended up going with (D). Isn't "many" equivalent to "some" as far as the LSAT is concerned? and would some ppl doing things to damage their kidneys necessarily weaken the argument? Thanks.

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: PT53 S3 Q9 help please (many vs. some)

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:38 am

Yes, "many" is similar to "some", though "some" could mean 1, while many suggests more than 1. Here's my take on this question:

It's a weakener, so let's find the core: regularly consuming camellia tea can result in heightened kidney damage. Why? Because regular drinkers are more likely to develop kidney damage.

Here we see an argument of causation, so we should look out for the possibility of a reversal of causation, that it could be another factor that causes both, or some other disconnect of the causation the argument suggests. For this one, perhaps camellia tea is often served with a triple shot of vodka, which is what causes the kidney damage. (E) suggests this very issue. The fact that (E) ambiguously uses "many" (which could mean various amounts), makes this a less strong answer than if it said "most" or "all", but it still opens the door to a third factor causing the kidney damage. Furthermore, the wrong answers do not weaken the argument at all:

(A) is out of scope - the addiction is not relevant to the kidney damage.
(B) is incorrect for the same reason.
(C) is irrelevant - what does alleviating stress have to do with kidney damage?
(D) is very tempting! Most of the folks who drink this tea do not develop kidney damage! But, even if only 49% of camellia tea drinkers are affected, this might be significantly more than the rate at which non-tea drinkers are affected.

Analogously, if most people who smoke do not get lung cancer, does it mean that it does not cause lung cancer? If only 5% of the non-smoking population get lung cancer, but 40% of smokers do, there's clearly a problem!

Does that clear it up?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, cianchetta0, Google [Bot], Instrumental, Pozzo, scalawag and 15 guests