#24 - People who have experienced a traumatic event but who

[Moshe613]

All answers above seem predicated on the idea that the stimulus' claim contains a promise that

If Traumatic Event -> Then Higher Cortisol. Always. Even in the event of TE + PTSD.

Whereas AC B demonstrates an instance of Traumatic Event which does NOT contain HC: namely, the instance of TE + PTSD.
Indeed, AC B states that only TE /PTSD -> HC.

This provides a counter-example to the logic presented by the stimulus' conclusion.

But is it true that the conclusion promised that If Traumatic Event -> Then Higher Cortisol ??

The conclusion simply promised that experiencing TE "can" lead to HC.
Indeed, even according to AC B, if someone experiences TE they will experience HC in order to combat PTSD although it may not succeed- (PTSD may occur despite the higher cortisol, perhaps because HC isn't sufficiently potent or maybe the instances of PTDS do not contain enough HC).

Who cares that cortisol is produced to counter PTSD in instances of TE- doesn't it still point to a prediction that in general, experiencing TE will lead to HC?

[Moshe613]

After some consideration, here is the core of the weakening:


Author's Explanation for higher cortisol in the study group: The experience of the trauma itself somehow led to this higher cortisol response (though not necessarily related to PTSD).

Answer Choice B's Explanation for potentially higher cortisol in the study group: These individuals already had a tendency to produce more cortisol, which helped them avoid PTSD.

It's about the origin and the role of the higher cortisol:

Author (implicitly): Trauma changes cortisol response.

Answer Choice B: Pre-existing cortisol response influences the outcome of trauma.

This point is critical: If Answer Choice B simply stated that trauma causes higher cortisol and that higher cortisol is beneficial, it would actually strengthen the idea that trauma has a physiological effect with potential positive consequences.

The weakening only works if Answer Choice B provides an ALTERNATIVE explanation for the higher cortisol observed in the study, suggesting it's not necessarily a result of the trauma itself, but a pre-existing factor.


In context of weakeners in general:
This is a case of weakening a causal relationship by attacking a core premise about appropriate samples.
The conclusion implicitly believes that "people who experience trauma and have no PTSD" is an appropriate sample to compare to "regular people" which the author then uses to build a causal relationship.
The weakener argues that "people who experience trauma and have no PTSD" is NOT REPRESENTATIVE for "people who experience trauma" but rather represent a distinct subset of people with it's own reasons for having higher cortisol that are not relevant to the larger set of "people who experience trauma".

This distinction is illustrated by the observation that having or not having PTSD could be a result of underlying conditions. These same underlying conditions could be a cause for higher or lower cortisol.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Moshe,

Your analysis looks good, especially the part about how the:

"people who experience trauma and have no PTSD" is NOT REPRESENTATIVE for "people who experience trauma"

This is exactly the key. It would be a little like comparing a group of vegetarians to a group of non-vegetarians to determine which diet is healthier, but the group of non-vegetarians just happens to consist entirely of Olympic athletes.