#20 - The level of triglycerides in the blood rises when

[kithly]

The way I thought about this was:
Inadequately metabolized trigs -> Increases trig levels
Consuming large amounts of fat, processed sugar, or alcohol -> Also increases trig levels

Blood trig levels above 1MM -> 2x as likely to heart attacks.

Therefore, consuming large amounts of fat is a factor in causing heart disease.

I am looking for an alternative explanation. Or, I am looking for the cause without the effect (A study of 10k people shows that they all heavily consume fat but do not have an increase in heart disease); or the effect without the cause (A study of 10k people with heart disease shows that all of them stick to low fat diets).

Does A) not do this? It shows that people with high fat diets (the cause) are less likely to develop heart disease (the effect). Is it because it's a relative sentence (by using "LESS LIKELY" to compare to someone with low fat diet) that it's not a weakener?

But in that case, how is D a weakener? Heart disease interfering with the body's ability to metabolize triglycerides has nothing to do with fat being a factor in HD. The two facts can mutually coexist.

[Brook Miscoski]

Kithly,

In this case, the quickest route to the right answer is identifying the type of reasoning that has occurred. The stimulus uses statistical/causal reasoning, so the standard attacks on that reasoning are in play.

My reaction to the stimulus was that correlation of triglyceride levels with heart disease is not causation. That's answer choice (D). Alternatively, answer choice (D) is a clear reversal of cause and effect--heart disease causes high triglyceride levels rather than high triglyceride levels causing heart disease. Answer choice (D) is a great standard response to a causal or statistical stimulus.

My path through the choices:

(A) The stimulus says fat is "a factor," not the only factor. Nice try, LSAT people, but I'm onto this clever trap.
(B) Stimulus is about heart, not whole health.
(C) What? I don't see how this interacts with the topic.
(D) Above.
(E) Stimulus is about heart, not whole health.

So there you go. Choice (A) is a nasty and clever trap, you really need to key into the language of the stimulus and realize that being able to compensate for fat doesn't mean that fat isn't "a" factor. ("a"=one of more; "the"=only)

[KSL]

Hello,

I am still a bit confused as to why A is wrong. I understand that it say a factor meaning it can have more than one but in. Answer choice A I feel like the “less likely” matches that non conclusive wording.

Is this a simple case of choosing the one that’s more right?

Thanks,

Katie

[Malila Robinson]

Hi KSL,
While Answer A looks appealing I think what we need to focus on is the fact that although it is saying that folks are much less likely to develop heart disease, it is not ruling out the possibility that fat could still cause (or be a factor of) heart disease. If there is still the possibility (even though it may be a small possibility)that it could be a cause/factor of heart disease then it does not weaken the conclusion.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[tessajw]

Im just confused because the stimulus never says anything about People who already have Heart Disease, so how could heart disease interfering with the metabolizing of triglycerides weaken the argument that only talks about peoples susceptibility / how prone they are to heart disease? So what if heart disease causes different levels, the argument is saying that this evidence is used to support that they are more likely to develop it, not that they already have it.

To simplify: the argument is that because people who have high triglyceride levels are more prone to heart disease, then consuming things that will make you have high triglyceride levels, will be a factor in causing heart disease.

Why does it matter if heart disease causes higher triglyceride levels? How does that impact the likelyhood of developing the disease? The stimulus never argues that people who have heart disease have high triglycerides, it just says that it can cause the heart disease. It never mentions the levels of it in people who have then gone on to develop heart disease.

If heart disease interferes with metabolizing triglycerides, then wouldnt that stregnthen the argument that high levels of it will make you prone to heart disease? Especially if heart disease causes issues with metabolizing it?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi tessajw,

First, it's important to remember that you need to accept each answer as true for Weaken questions, and therefore it is completely fine (and even expected) for the correct answer to bring up so called "new" or "outside" information. What you need to ask yourself is, if that answer is true, would that information be relevant to the argument and would it cast doubt on the conclusion.

Second, it's always important to read very carefully and to note important distinctions/changes in terms within the argument. The premise tells us that there is a correlation between patients with higher blood triglyceride levels and likelihood of heart attacks (not heart disease). This difference does matter.

Based on the correlation between higher blood triglyceride levels and likelihood of heart attacks, the argument concludes that consuming large amounts of fat, sugar, or alcohol, which increase triglyceride levels in the blood, causes heart disease.

In other words, the argument is assuming that fat/sugar/alcohol increase triglyceride levels in the blood, which in turn causes heart disease, which in turn increases the chance of a heart attack.

What Answer D states is that heart disease interferes with the body's ability to metabolize triglycerides. We know from the first sentence of the stimulus that triglyceride levels in the blood increase when triglycerides can't be adequately metabolized.

What Answer D implies is that the actual causal relationship is that having heart disease causes both the increased triglyceride levels in the blood and the increased chance of a heart attack.

Answer D weakens the argument because now the increased triglyceride levels may actually be an effect of the heart disease rather than a causal factor.