#8 - We can now dismiss the widely held suspicion that sugar

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

This stimulus discusses the impact of sugar consumption on hyperactivity in children with ADD (attention deficit disorder). The stimulus begins with the author’s conclusion: We can now dismiss the notion that sugar consumption exacerbates hyperactivity in ADD children. This conclusion is based on a “scientific study” (be wary of the vague appeal to authority here) which showed that hyperactivity levels among ADD children who were given three common sugars was not distinguishable from those of ADD children who received a sugar substitute (we should also note the vague description of the sugar substitute—its effects must be distinguishable from those of sugar for it to facilitate an effective control group).

The question stem asks which of the answer choices most weakens the argument.

Answer choice (A): The fact that only one of the sugars used in the study was widely suspected of exacerbating hyperactivity does not change the observed behavior of the study’s subjects. This does not weaken the conclusion drawn in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): Since the stimulus is concerned exclusively with ADD children, information about children in general is not relevant to the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the sugar substitute used in the study had the same or similar effect as the three sugars, it would not facilitate a good control group for the study, and no conclusions about distinguishing characteristics of the sugars could be logically drawn.

Answer choice (D): As long as all groups participated in these activities, it would not affect the outcome of the study (of course if the control group participated in these activities but the sugar groups did not, the study would be severely flawed).

Answer choice (E): The fact that some children have this belief would not necessarily have an effect on this study, as it is unclear whether any of the subjects would have actually been able to make this distinction, nor whether such knowledge would have had any effects on their behavior.

[bk1111]

Hello - can someone further explain why D does not weaken the argument, or is irrelevant altogether? I think my general thought process was interpreting D as an alternative cause of hyperactivity. I now see that it wouldn't do much to conclusion, because it doesn't do much to explain how the study proves that sugar doesn't affect kids with ADD.

[Adam Tyson]

If the entire study was done in circumstances that hype kids up, that might do some harm, because that might mask the effect of the sugar. However, just having some of the observations being made in those circumstances doesn't do much, because there may have been others, perhaps even the majority, in situations that were not conducive to hyperactivity. In those cases, if sugar caused hyperactivity and the substitute did not, we might expect the sugared kids to be more obviously hyper than the unsugared kids. I wouldn't say that it was irrelevant, but that it doesn't do much to hurt the argument.

The real problem with the study is that we can't be sure that the control group was a proper control group, as pointed out by answer C, which raises that possibility and introduces the biggest doubt about the validity of the study.

[queenbee]

Hi
I seem to be getting the weaken questions wrong when the answers conflict with information provided in the passage.
The passage indicates that there were 2 groups of children (I am assuming they both had AAD though it is not clear from the stimulus). The experimental group was give fructose, glucose, and sucrose. The control group was given a sugar substitute.
The stimulus states there was no observable difference in the behaviors or thinking between the 2 groups.
If the above is true, then wouldn't we have seen the control group to be more hyperactive (choice C)?

I chose (D) because I interpreted the answer as both groups were behaving and thinking the same way - so there must have been some other common stimulus to which both groups were responding.

Any chance you can help clarify?
Thanks

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

I think what you're saying is that, if answer choice (C) is right, the control group would have had worse hyperactivity. That doesn't seem to be happening in the stimulus, so that seems to conflict. That's not right, though - aren't the control group kids showing more hyperactivity? Let me explain. The issue is not whether consumption of sugar substitutes produces more hyperactivity than consumption of sugar, but whether consumption of sugar substitutes produces more hyperactivity than someone otherwise would have had (if THEY had consumed nothing). So when the two groups had no difference, the author of the stimulus is concluding triumphantly: "Look! Sugar doesn't exacerbate hyperactivity! It does no more than sugar substitutes do!" But how do we know that? We need a control group - some children who take nothing, some children who take sugar, some children who take the sugar substitutes. If ALL these groups have equal levels of hyperactivity, there's probably no difference. But if the sugar kids and the sugar substitute kids have the same levels of hyperactivity, but the kids who took nothing have lower levels than BOTH of those...well, it looks like sugar substitutes and sugar both have an effect of exacerbating hyperactivity.

So...from my experiment with three groups, take away one - take away the kids that didn't take anything. You'd find the same results as the stimulus, but if you added my group back in, you'd see that sugar and sugar substitutes are both exacerbating hyperactivity. The author's right that sugar and substitutes don't differ between each other, but it could be that way because both exacerbate hyperactivity. We don't know how hyperactive the kids would have been if they took nothing.

In short, the fact that the sugar substitute kids weren't more hyperactive than the sugar kids doesn't mean they weren't more hyperactive - we need a baseline to compare. How hyperactive is a kid who takes nothing? And the argument lacks that.

What you're saying about answer choice (D) seems to strengthen the argument. If the context was equal on both sides, that is controlling outside factors and making them apply equally.

Robert Carroll

[CristinaCP]

Hi!

I have two questions about this:

1. I chose C because I recognized that the "sugar substitutes" group wasn't a true control group, but looking at the answer again I'm realizing that it only refers to "some sugar substitutes." Doesn't this AC require us to assume that the sugar substitutes which can cause hyperactivity are the same ones which were given to the kids? I guess this isn't necessary to assume because just the fact that some sugar substitutes cause hyperactivity creates some doubt. But I also know that sometimes Weaken answer choices are wrong precisely because they use weak language like "some," which may or may not apply to the stimulus. Could you help me understand why the rather weak language doesn't disqualify this answer choice but might disqualify another Weaken answer choice?

2. I eliminated D because it doesn't widen the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Even if we know that the kids were sometimes observed in contexts that tend to make kids excited, there was still no significant difference in behavior. The author might say "Yes, we observed them on a playground, but the kids fed sugar still weren't more hyperactive than the kids fed Splenda, so sugar must not cause hyperactivity." Does my reasoning make sense? Is D wrong because it doesn't impact how we or the author might interpret the evidence?

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi Cristina,

1. Great question. Soft language here is great because we think of some as meaning = "at least one." and since in weaken questions we are trying to introduce at least 1% of doubt to the argument, showing that at least one type of sugar does cause hyperactivity to introduce at least a little doubt to the argument that sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity. So to more broadly answer your question as to when is soft language ok, you want to consider the broader meaning. Generally soft language is great because it applies more broadly where as strongly worded answer choices may only apply in certain instances.

2. Your reasoning for D is great. Saying they observed them in areas where they tend to be more excited and noting that they were not more excited would actually strengthen the argument instead of weakening it.

[Catallus]

1. Great question. Soft language here is great because we think of some as meaning = "at least one." and since in weaken questions we are trying to introduce at least 1% of doubt to the argument, showing that at least one type of sugar does cause hyperactivity to introduce at least a little doubt to the argument that sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity. So to more broadly answer your question as to when is soft language ok, you want to consider the broader meaning. Generally soft language is great because it applies more broadly where as strongly worded answer choices may only apply in certain instances.

I don't understand why soft language would be considered "great"; more often than not (at least from what I've seen), it's a reason to discount an answer choice for a Weaken/Strengthen question, not to select it. Here, for instance, the stronger variant "All sugar substitutes" or just "sugar substitutes" would have had far more impact than "Some sugar substitutes," because we have absolutely no idea whether or not the sugar substitutes used in the study are the ones mentioned in (C), or even if the two groups have any overlap at all. I still picked (C) because the other answer choices were so irrelevant here, but this question seems like an exception to the general rule that "some" answer choices are disfavored in Weaken/Strengthen questions relative to more strongly worded choices.

[Adam Tyson]

I might modify that explanation to say that soft language is, in this case, sufficient, because all we need to do to introduce some doubt is just raise the possibility of the sugar substitute also contributing to hyperactivity. "Some" should at least force to ask the question, was the substitute in this case one of those that had that effect? If we have to ask, then the argument is undermined, even though it isn't completely disproved.

"Some" also makes this answer less attractive, which is a clever ploy on the part of the test makers, because we might not at first see why it's relevant and damaging. They do like to make correct answers look bad! So, in that sense, soft language is great because it makes for a much better test of your ability to see why it matters. It's a way to make the test more challenging, and therefore more useful to law schools when assessing applicants!