Top Law Schools

I have a question about Preptest 53, Section 1 LR # 8.

Why are A and E wrong?

How would a conditional conclusion be wrong? Is A and E on because they don't indicate that the sufficient condtion fo the conclusion "If night lights cause nearsightness" been affirmed?

What would be an example answer that would weaken the conclusion by showing hte sufficient occured without the necessary for this specific question?

bumpppppp

someone please help

(A) is incorrect because it compares infants to infants and not younger children to older children. Thus, since time/age isn't a factor, (A) is notwithstanding and out of scope so it doesn't weaken.

(E) is a bit trickier. In (E), we really don't know how "several" out of 100 children compares with the doctor's earlier studies. Also, this choice doesn't show that night lights cause near sightedness (perhaps something else caused ns).

ZVBXRPL wrote:(A) is incorrect because it compares infants to infants and not younger children to older children. Thus, since time/age isn't a factor, (A) is notwithstanding and out of scope so it doesn't weaken.

(E) is a bit trickier. In (E), we really don't know how "several" out of 100 children compares with the doctor's earlier studies. Also, this choice doesn't show that night lights cause near sightedness (perhaps something else caused ns).

for A, what do you mean time/age isn't a factor.

I feel A is a candidate as it shows that nightlights don't affect at any age, by showing infants do not experince vision change with the usage of night lights, and if it doesn't affect at any age, it doesn't "disappear" with age.

The doctor's studies (and conclusion) state that night-light caused nearsightedness (ns) improves with age (ex: Tom has ns as an infant. Tom's ns improves when he turns 11 years old). But how can (A) disprove or weaken the doctor's conclusion if (A) solely compares infants who are currently sleeping with night-lights to infants who are not? What about when the all important age/time factor (doctor's conclusion)--you can't weaken this stimulus by attacking half the data. (A) is incorrect because that is precisely what it does--it doesn't compare to older children.

ZVBXRPL wrote:The doctor's studies (and conclusion) state that night-light caused nearsightedness (ns) improves with age (ex: Tom has ns as an infant. Tom's ns improves when he turns 11 years old). But how can (A) disprove or weaken the doctor's conclusion if (A) solely compares infants who are currently sleeping with night-lights to infants who are not? What about when the all important age/time factor (doctor's conclusion)--you can't weaken this stimulus by attacking half the data. (A) is incorrect because that is precisely what it does--it doesn't compare to older children.

For A to be correct, it would have to be a comparsion of infants to older children with the same result?

ioannisk wrote:

ZVBXRPL wrote:The doctor's studies (and conclusion) state that night-light caused nearsightedness (ns) improves with age (ex: Tom has ns as an infant. Tom's ns improves when he turns 11 years old). But how can (A) disprove or weaken the doctor's conclusion if (A) solely compares infants who are currently sleeping with night-lights to infants who are not? What about when the all important age/time factor (doctor's conclusion)--you can't weaken this stimulus by attacking half the data. (A) is incorrect because that is precisely what it does--it doesn't compare to older children.

For A to be correct, it would have to be a comparsion of infants to older children with the same result?

Yes. Make sense?

ZVBXRPL wrote:

ioannisk wrote:

ZVBXRPL wrote:The doctor's studies (and conclusion) state that night-light caused nearsightedness (ns) improves with age (ex: Tom has ns as an infant. Tom's ns improves when he turns 11 years old). But how can (A) disprove or weaken the doctor's conclusion if (A) solely compares infants who are currently sleeping with night-lights to infants who are not? What about when the all important age/time factor (doctor's conclusion)--you can't weaken this stimulus by attacking half the data. (A) is incorrect because that is precisely what it does--it doesn't compare to older children.

For A to be correct, it would have to be a comparsion of infants to older children with the same result?

Yes. Make sense?

a bit more yea, but let me add something.

For A to be correct, wouldn't the answer have to include factors such as:

1. The infants did experience nearsightness due to the night light, and THEN
2. As they got older, they still retained their bad vision (nearsightness) eyesight

this would destroy the necessary condition of hsi conclusion "If nightlights cause nearsightness, IT DISAPPEARS WITH AGE" as showing it did NOT disappear with age.

Am I right? or am I overboarding? Is there an alternative way to weaken the statement other then the one I am talking about/the correct answer?

Yes. That should work.