Top Law Schools

I know exactly why E is correct, and I know exactly why A, B, C are incorrect. The problem is that I cannot eliminate D completely. I can see how it weakens an argument. At the very least, it gives us a potential concern as to why the suggestion should be implemented with caution.

It seems, if there was no E, D would be the credited response. I'm used to the "4 clearly wrong/1 clearly right" scenario.

Can someone, please, point how D is off?

If you post the question, I'll gladly take a stab at it, but I don't have that particular PT.

musicfor18 wrote:If you post the question, I'll gladly take a stab at it, but I don't have that particular PT.

Concise version:

Stimulus:

Hard water has more A and B than soft water

Thus, those who drink soft water incur an increased level of XYZ diseases since people treated for these conditions tend too have lower levels of B in their blood.

Q: Undermine the argument

(D) Taking B inhibits the effectives of many medications used to treat XYZ
(E) Medication for XYZ diminish the body's capacity to absorb and retain B (in other words reverses the cause)

Well, my first reaction is that, as you said, (E) is correct because it points to the fact that causality is not established in the argument (only correlation is established).

I think it's important to realize that part of what looks like the conclusion is actually additional evidence. The question could be written this way:

Hard water has more A and B than soft water, and people who have been treated for XYZ diseases tend to have lower levels of B in their blood. Thus, those who drink soft water incur increased levels of XYZ diseases.

If you read it this way, separating evidence from conclusion properly, I think it's pretty clear that (D) is completely irrelevant to the argument, and doesn't undermine it at all. To begin with, the conclusion you're trying to undermine says nothing about treating or medicating the diseases, only about the existence of the diseases.

Does this help at all?

musicfor18 wrote:Well, my first reaction is that, as you said, (E) is correct because it points to the fact that causality is not established in the argument (only correlation is established).

I think it's important to realize that part of what looks like the conclusion is actually additional evidence. The question could be written this way:

Hard water has more A and B than soft water, and people who have been treated for XYZ diseases tend to have lower levels of B in their blood. Thus, those who drink soft water incur increased levels of XYZ diseases.

If you read it this way, separating evidence from conclusion properly, I think it's pretty clear that (D) is completely irrelevant to the argument, and doesn't undermine it at all. To begin with, the conclusion you're trying to undermine says nothing about treating or medicating the diseases, only about the existence of the diseases.

Does this help at all?

I cannot believe it!!! I was just about to explain how I see D being very relevant and weakening the argument when I realized that I'd read a fact that "soft water increases XYZ" as a recommendation to drink hard water, and, thus, D made perfect sense to me.

Oh, silly me

Yep, confusing evidence with conclusion is a classic LSAT gaffe. Glad it makes sense now!