PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

KylieMorrison
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:22 pm

PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby KylieMorrison » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:15 pm

I am confused on this question why C is a better answer than D?

Even if C is true, the consumption of some sugar substitutes exacerbates the symptoms of hyperactivity, I still don't see how that weakens that conclusion that "we can now dismiss the suspicion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity in children with attention deficit disorder."

If someone could please explain this question to me I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby piccolittle » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:35 pm

If consumption of some sugar substitutes exacerbates symptoms of hyperactivity, and the substitute that the children were given in the study happened to be one that exacerbated hyperactivity, the lack of a significant difference in behavior could be a result of an equal effect on the children by both the sugar and substitute (they were equally hyper, rather than equally calm). Thus, the sugar could in fact still make kids hyperactive, and the conclusion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity cannot be dismissed.

Helpful?

KylieMorrison
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:22 pm

Re: PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby KylieMorrison » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:44 pm

Yes that is very helpful and I can now see how it weakens the argument but can you explain how D doesn't weaken the argument?

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby piccolittle » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:50 pm

Hmmm... from what I saw, D is not as strong as C because of the "some" qualifier. If "some" of the observations occurred in places where children tend to get hyperactive, then "some" of the other observations were made under normal conditions and yielded the results in the study. D does not weaken (or "explain away" as I like to think of it) the conclusion, which is based on the fact that the children's behavior was the same regardless of whether they consumed sugar or substitute. Because this is true, you could still reasonably conclude that sugar has no different effect than a sugar substitute on hyperactivity, which would be none at all.

Argh, that was a bit more confused-sounding than I intended... hope that helps though!

User avatar
ShuckingNotJiving
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:24 am

Re: PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby ShuckingNotJiving » Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:25 pm

D doesn't account for the lack of difference in thinking or behavior. The conclusion states that the suspicion that sugar exacerbates hyperactivity can be dismissed. so to weaken, you have to show that it doesn't necessarily have to be dismissed, that is, show that something else accounted for there being no statistical difference. If anything, D would strengthen the argument, because it would show that even though the children were placed in contexts prone to excite, those who ate sugar were not affected anymore than those who didn't.

User avatar
WonkyPanda
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby WonkyPanda » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:42 am

I don't know why, but I thought this was one of the more clever LRs that i've seen recently. The subtlety is great and the weakener is so tiny but perfectly attacks the conclusion.

Tiwinkle12
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:53 pm

Re: PT 51 LR Section 1 #8

Postby Tiwinkle12 » Mon May 30, 2016 10:48 pm

Why can't A be the correct answer? I originally picked A because I thought it weakened the conclusion by showing that the test was conducted incorrectly. Any help would be appreciated! :)




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cctv, galeatus, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests