#11 - Recent studies indicate a correlation between damage

[Dave Killoran]

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.

Awesome, thanks for the extra info! And glad to hear the books are helping. I'll post a reply here in a bit now that now right where the issue is that's bothering you. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Ok, let's look into what you wrote in your original question:

...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."

I wouldn't agree that it was this statement that solely lead to the author's conclusion. It's both sides of it, that some with damage don't get schizophrenia and that some with schizophrenia don't have damage. The author saw exceptions on both sides of the data (damage and schizophrenia) and concluded that there's no connection at all.

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.

The comment in answer choice (A) indicates that the argument has overlooked the fact that not every single type of damage causes schizophrenia. In other words, perhaps it's a specific kind of damage that activates schizophrenia, not every single type of damage. With that in mind, there's no contradiction with the stimulus. Side note: It looks to me like you may have focused on the "some but not all" portion of (A) without fully realizing that the "types" was critical here.

The idea you had here about a close reading wasn't a bad one, it's just not actually what's occurring in (A) (and note the difference in the stimulus: "some people..." vs "some but not all types of damage"). Also of interest is that you admit you picked (C) even though you didn't like it. When that occurs, it can be useful to revisit your interpretation of the other contending answer, just to make sure you haven't read too much into it!

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[lsatretaker]

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I definitely see why I was confused. Thanks for the reply!

[jsilve17]

I’m confused as to why A is the answer and not B. The line “there are people without damage to this chromosome who develop AS and some people with damage to chromosome number six do not develop AS” seems like it rules out A because A would only account for those who have damage to 6 without developing AS and not the people who have AS without damage. B, however, says the reasoning that there’s not a causal relationship is wrong because there’s more than one factor (which explains why there could be damage to 6 without AS (maybe it needs 7 to be damaged also) and why there could be AS without damage to 6 (maybe in some cases it’s influenced all by the other factor)

[Dave Killoran]

Hi J,

Thanks for the question! I've posted a bunch of responses on this question (and there are over 40 posts already in total), so I'm a little hesitant to go back in and open this one up again because I'm not sure what else I can add here that would further explain (A). Did you have a chance to read all the prior discussions on this? They go pretty in-depth here.

Please let me know your thoughts on those. Thanks!