PT 35. Sect. 4. #10

User avatar
cloudhidden
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am

PT 35. Sect. 4. #10

Postby cloudhidden » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:19 pm

Can someone explain why D is correct and E wrong? E seems to eliminate an alternative cause for the results of the experiment and D implies something that is itself a symptom displays symptoms.

Malapropism
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: PT 35. Sect. 4. #10

Postby Malapropism » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:04 pm

E is basically saying that when you inject the blood of a healthy rat into other rats, they don't have any symptoms of the disease that neither rat had in the first place. My guess is that you read "without" as "with."

D basically is saying that the symptoms of CJ, which the rats are displaying, can stem from the same cause as Alzheimers - or, rather, that the expression of symptoms of CJ demonstrates the presence of the same (alleged) virus that would cause Alzheimers.

HTH.

User avatar
cloudhidden
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am

Re: PT 35. Sect. 4. #10

Postby cloudhidden » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:27 pm

I thought that E could show that it wasn't some other cause that led to C-J disease in the rats, namely the response of the rats to the injection itself, and not the virus. Very weak support I know, but I was not comfortable picking D because it seemed to contradict the stimulus where it states that the rats showed symptoms of C-J, and it doesn't make since that C-J can be a symptom and not a disease. If D were true, wouldn't that also justify the conclusion, rather than just strengthen it? Finally, why do we even need the experiment? We can conclude just by the facts that both diseases are symptoms of some underlying disease and that C-J is caused by a virus that the conclusion, which is stated in probablistic terms, is justified wiithout the results of the experiment.

Malapropism
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: PT 35. Sect. 4. #10

Postby Malapropism » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:36 pm

With as much justification as you had to make for E to fit, you should know that at tha point you may as well count it out :P

What D is saying, as I understood it, was that the fact that the blood injected into the rats caused them to display symptoms of CJ could be considered proof that there was something transmittable in the blood. The stimulus already tells us that CJ itself isn't transferrable, so that's not an issue, and there is already a very strong implication that the blood injection caused the symptoms of CJ; answer choice D helps support the conclusion by explaining that the one root of the CJ symptoms could, in other situations, display itself as symptoms of Alzheimers.

The purpose of the experiment is to show that this virus (which can cause Alzheimers) is, in fact, a virus, as opposed to a genetic disease. CJ itself isn't caused by a disease, which is how the experiment helps suggest that whatever /was/ caused by a disease is in fact the virus causing Alzheimers.

Does that clear things up?

User avatar
cloudhidden
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am

Re: PT 35. Sect. 4. #10

Postby cloudhidden » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:17 pm

Thanks for the help. I can follow the reasoning in the problem fairly well now; strengthen questions continue to throw me for a loop because they allow for creativity in the answers but, of course, there are unstated limits on just how much creativity.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcapace, BobBoblaw, dontsaywhatyoumean, Tazewell and 10 guests