PT 53 Section 3 Q11 (LR) Forum

[tezzeret]

Hey all, this is reference to the question in the title. I am not quite sure how C is the answering (even using the method of eliminating all the wrong answers first), and it feels like it is not worded properly although I could be misinterpreting what its saying.

[brooklynboy]

Hi tezzeret,

I'll go through how I approached this question; hopefully it will be of some help!

First, I broke down the argument core:

PREMISE: 1. Businesspeople who travel internationally are more likely to suffer from insomnia than are businesspeople who do not travel for their jobs.
2. These international travelers experience certain stresses.
CONCLUSION: It is likely that these stresses cause the insomnia.

Note that the only difference between my breakdown and the stimulus itself is that I am putting out of my head the details of the stresses, as they aren't necessary to my understanding of the argument core.

Before I look at answer choices, I like to stop for a second and think about what is wrong with the reasoning of the stimulus. If there were nothing wrong, then we wouldn't be able to strengthen it! (I also think in similar ways about stimuli for weaken questions; necessary and sufficient assumption questions; and flaw questions.)

So, what's wrong with the argument? One thing that jumps out at me immediately is that the argument is deducing causation when we only have evidence of correlation. As I'm sure you know, the LSAT loves to test our understanding of this flaw!

In general, I try not to think, "The answer can be x, y, or z," and then just scan the answer choices looking for one of those. The LSAT crafts its wording carefully, so I like to just have a strong understanding of the gap/flaw, and then eliminate choices that don't, in this case, remedy that flaw. I have tried it the other way and found that working wrong-to-right is more effective for searching for an answer I've come up with myself, although it can still be helpful to think quickly of some possible answers. You'll have to drill while trying different approaches to see what works best for you!

Now, on to the answer choices:

(A) This is completely irrelevant to the reasoning. It has nothing to do with stresses causing insomnia.
(B) Same as above.
(C) This does strengthen, by telling us that a potential weakener was not the case. If businesspeople who already had chronic insomnia were the ones traveling internationally, then the stress of travel would not be causing the insomnia. The insomnia would have already existed!
(D) This is a weakener, as it suggests that the stresses of international travel do not cause chronic insomnia, but rather help those afflicted with it.
(E) Another weakener. If people who no longer experience the stress of international travel still have sleep problems, then it is likely that something else is responsible. You could argue that perhaps the stresses of international travel initially triggered the insomnia and that these people just haven't gotten rid of it, but thinking that this strengthens the argument relies on circular reasoning. You would have to assume that the conclusion is already true in order to think this way, and so you wouldn't be strengthening the argument.

It sounds to me like maybe you just got caught up in the wordiness and the negated phrases of (C). All it's saying is that businesspeople who travel internationally weren't more likely than other businesspeople to have insomnia before they started traveling internationally. Do you see why that strengthens the reasoning of the stimulus?

I realize that my explanation focuses just on this question rather than discussing the correlation-causation flaw and strengtheners/weakeners to that assumption more generally. If you'd like me to go into that, let me know and I would be happy to!

[KDLMaj]

Hi tezzeret,

I'll go through how I approached this question; hopefully it will be of some help!

First, I broke down the argument core:

PREMISE: 1. Businesspeople who travel internationally are more likely to suffer from insomnia than are businesspeople who do not travel for their jobs.
2. These international travelers experience certain stresses.
CONCLUSION: It is likely that these stresses cause the insomnia.

Note that the only difference between my breakdown and the stimulus itself is that I am putting out of my head the details of the stresses, as they aren't necessary to my understanding of the argument core.

Before I look at answer choices, I like to stop for a second and think about what is wrong with the reasoning of the stimulus. If there were nothing wrong, then we wouldn't be able to strengthen it! (I also think in similar ways about stimuli for weaken questions; necessary and sufficient assumption questions; and flaw questions.)

So, what's wrong with the argument? One thing that jumps out at me immediately is that the argument is deducing causation when we only have evidence of correlation. As I'm sure you know, the LSAT loves to test our understanding of this flaw!

In general, I try not to think, "The answer can be x, y, or z," and then just scan the answer choices looking for one of those. The LSAT crafts its wording carefully, so I like to just have a strong understanding of the gap/flaw, and then eliminate choices that don't, in this case, remedy that flaw. I have tried it the other way and found that working wrong-to-right is more effective for searching for an answer I've come up with myself, although it can still be helpful to think quickly of some possible answers. You'll have to drill while trying different approaches to see what works best for you!

Now, on to the answer choices:

(A) This is completely irrelevant to the reasoning. It has nothing to do with stresses causing insomnia.
(B) Same as above.
(C) This does strengthen, by telling us that a potential weakener was not the case. If businesspeople who already had chronic insomnia were the ones traveling internationally, then the stress of travel would not be causing the insomnia. The insomnia would have already existed!
(D) This is a weakener, as it suggests that the stresses of international travel do not cause chronic insomnia, but rather help those afflicted with it.
(E) Another weakener. If people who no longer experience the stress of international travel still have sleep problems, then it is likely that something else is responsible. You could argue that perhaps the stresses of international travel initially triggered the insomnia and that these people just haven't gotten rid of it, but thinking that this strengthens the argument relies on circular reasoning. You would have to assume that the conclusion is already true in order to think this way, and so you wouldn't be strengthening the argument.

It sounds to me like maybe you just got caught up in the wordiness and the negated phrases of (C). All it's saying is that businesspeople who travel internationally weren't more likely than other businesspeople to have insomnia before they started traveling internationally. Do you see why that strengthens the reasoning of the stimulus?

I realize that my explanation focuses just on this question rather than discussing the correlation-causation flaw and strengtheners/weakeners to that assumption more generally. If you'd like me to go into that, let me know and I would be happy to!

Nice analysis here.

causal arguments are a big part of the LSAT. Whenever you see a strengthening, weakening, or flaw questions- be ready to actively look for signs that you have a bad causal claim going on. (Causation primarily "lives" in Str/Wk, and you often 1 causal stim in flaw Qs on a given test too)

Signs to look out for:

-Causation is almost always found in the conclusion. [X is brought about by Y; X leads to Y; X causes Y; etc]
-The evidence will generally present you with two things going on that are set up in a way that makes it seem like they could be related

The assumption is No ARC:
-There's no Alternative cause for Y
-It's not Reversed- (Y didn't cause X)
-It's not a Coincidence (they just both happen to be going on)

The answer choice you're looking for depends on the Q Type:

Strengthen: Correct answer makes ARC less likely to be true (discount an alternative cause, change the time frame so it might not have been reveresed/coincidence, etc)

Weaken: Correct answer make ARC more likely to be true (exact opposite of above)

Flaw (Flaw Qs describe the problem): Generically describes a bad causal argument (almost always using language related to the ARC scenarios above) or "Overlooks/Ignores the possibility that" [A, R, or C].

In the rare situations where you see a causal argument in a Nec. Sufficient Q, the answer will rule out one A, R, or C. In the EXTREMELY rare scenarios where you find a causal argument in a Suff. Question, the answer will effectively rule out ALL of A, R, and C.

Hope that helps!