#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