#11 - Recent studies indicate a correlation between damage

[Claire Horan]

Hi Oakenshield,

I would not label this flaw "unrepresentative sample" because we don't know how many people constitute "some people" (whether there are many or few) and whether that group has any particular characteristics. Usually when we think of unrepresentative sample there is a reason that particular group would not be representative of the whole group; for example, if the whole group is American citizens, but the sample includes only 11-year-old American citizens, that would be an unrepresentative sample.

The flaw in this question doesn't have a particular name that is laid out in LSAT test prep books. That's okay--test prep books include the most common types of questions and flaws, but they are not exhaustive. However, once you read answer choice A you can apply it to the stimulus and see that it works to invalidate the argument. The idea is that perhaps there are multiple types of damage to chromosome six and one of these types always causes adult schizophrenia. If that were the case, there would be a causal connection, contradicting the conclusion in the stimulus.

[adlindsey]

I chose B. I see why it's incorrect. I had A as a contender but dismissed it because it doesn't describe anything about "there are people without damage to the chromosome who develop schizophrenia." It only describes the second part of this premise.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi adlindsey,

Keep in mind here that the flaw doesn't necessarily encompass every part of the argument; here, you don't need A to address the phrase you mentioned, because the phrase you mentioned isn't necessarily a problem with the argument. Hope that helps!

[AJH]

Hello,

I was slightly torn between A and E. Thanks to the explanations above, I understand why A is the correct choice. However, I am wondering what I should do going forward with similar questions. Is this a matter of attention to detail and close reading, or is there something else I am missing?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Don't fret too much over this one, AJH, because questions about denying a causal relationship are far less common than ones that claim there is such a relationship. Here, the key is that the author is not saying that correlation implies causation, but that an imperfect correlation implies that there isn't a causal relationship. That's what should knock out answer E for us - it isn't about proving a cause and effect, but about disproving one.

When you see one like this, consider the possibility that there can be a causal relationship even if the cause doesn't always bring about the effect, perhaps due to there being other factors that work with or against the cause. A cause happening and an effect not happening weakens a causal claim, but it doesn't disprove one!

[Khodi7531]

I really hate this question because under time I was in a complete "wtf" moment. Not sure if I had seen this before and just went to E through a half assed POE.

Now after reading some things to break this question down, I get what the issue is; theres correlation between schizo and a chromosome, but we've had cases with schizo and without schizo when the chromosome hasn't been damaged or has been damaged. So, it isn't causal


It's still hard for me to wrap my head around what its saying completely. But I do see how it's essentially assuming, that the only cause for adult schizo is damage to chromosome 6... it's not thinking that it is still causally related but doesn't need to always happen.

But that's also where my question comes in for causality. When something is casual, it's saying something causes something else, but doesn't mean that it always arises from this same cause, correct? I don't know why but I was thinking that when something causes something, it's the sole cause and thats it. I know it's incorrect and not sure why but I think this affected my judgement for this question and trying to find it's flaw. I ignored A because I was thinking "how can something 'sometimes' cause another thing?" doesn't it always cause it if theres there


But I think the way to think is that - for example - when A causes B...you read it like a conditional diagram. When A is there, it causes B. But if you have B ... doesn't necessarily mean you have A. And if you don't have B, it doesn't mean you don't have A...which is essentially saying that the ONLY WAY B can occur, is with A.

Is this right? I'm trying to really break it down to get to the foundation to make sure I don't miss anything that's related to causality and correlation - even though this specific question may be rare.

[Alex Bodaken]

Khodi7531,

This kind of examination of your own thinking is GREAT! And you are spot-on: just because A causes B does not mean that A is the only cause of B, nor that nothing but A can cause B. And that, ultimately, is the problem with this argument: it could be true that A causes B even if other things cause B and A causes other things...and that's what answer choice (A) gets at.

Keep at it and great work!
Alex

[lsatretaker]

I narrowed the two answers down to A and C, but rejected A (though I didn't like C) because the author reaches his or her conclusion that there is no causal connection from the premise that "there are people WITHOUT damage to this chromosome who develop adult schizophrenia." Answer choice A seems to contradict the premise mentioned above because A says "some but not all types of damage . . . lead to schizophrenia" and the premise specifically states that "some people" develop schizophrenia with NO damage, ruling out the possibility that it could be "some but not all types of damage." I suspected that the LSAT authors were trying to test a close reading of exactly which types of people the argument was referencing.

Am I right in this assessment? If so, why is A still correct? If not, please explain. Thank you!

[Dave Killoran]

I narrowed the two answers down to A and C, but rejected A (though I didn't like C) because the author reaches his or her conclusion that there is no causal connection from the premise that "there are people WITHOUT damage to this chromosome who develop adult schizophrenia." Answer choice A seems to contradict the premise mentioned above because A says "some but not all types of damage . . . lead to schizophrenia" and the premise specifically states that "some people" develop schizophrenia with NO damage, ruling out the possibility that it could be "some but not all types of damage." I suspected that the LSAT authors were trying to test a close reading of exactly which types of people the argument was referencing.

Am I right in this assessment? If so, why is A still correct? If not, please explain. Thank you!

Hi Retaker,

Quick question: did you happen to see the full explanations of (A) that I made on the first page of this thread? This thread has gotten to 4 pages so you may have missed it, but before we reply we like to make sure new posters have seen the prior discussions on a question

Thanks!

[lsatretaker]

Hi Dave,

Yep, I did see the explanation above. I understand why A is correct - it describes a way that causation could still be present. My issue is with how it seems to conflict with the evidence provided. I tend to over-analyze language on the test, and while it helps answer questions where such a close reading is necessary, it gets me into trouble in situations like this one.

Also, when I took the LSAT last I used the Princeton Review book, and after only a month of using yours (LG and LR Bibles) I'm already testing better than I scored. Thanks for your help, here and elsewhere.