#19 - Although high cholesterol levels have been associated

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

The author begins this stimulus with the presentation of some basic information: high cholesterol levels have been associated with heart disease. Recently lipoproteins have also been linked to heart disease, but these do not respond to dietary changes.

Based on the above premises, the author incorrectly concludes that dietary changes that effect are useless in preventing heart disease, in spite of the fact that the very first sentence of the stimulus gives reason to believe otherwise!

Answer choice (A): This consideration is irrelevant—the flaw here is that the author makes a somewhat self-contradictory argument.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect for the same reason that answer choice (A) above is incorrect—this is an irrelevant consideration.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author presents evidence in the first sentence of a link between high cholesterol and heart disease, and then later concludes that cholesterol decreasing dietary changes are of no use.

Answer choice (D): Since the stimulus does not involve any health problems other than heart disease, this is an irrelevant consideration.

Answer choice (E): No explanation is required for this phenomenon—it is presented as a simple premise.

[ylikate]

Can someone help me understand why AC (A) is incorrect? My thought behind (A) is that - If lipoprotein raises cholesterol level and lipoprotein is associated with heart disease, then it there is reason to make dietary change that affect cholestral for preventing heart disease.

Thanks!

[Jon Denning]

Hey ylikate - thanks for the question. I'm looking for question #67 and not actually seeing it, as it appears that the Flaw questions in the book and online both end at #65. So I'm guessing this is actually about question #64, which seems to be on this exact topic. But please let me know if that's not the case.

For 64, the conclusion in the last sentence is that there is no reason for anyone to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease. The problem with that conclusion is that, while those dietary changes may not affect lipoprotein(a) levels, we've already been told that dietary changes CAN affect cholesterol levels, and high cholesterol levels do contribute to heart disease for some people (there are many people for whom their heart disease "was not attributable to other causes"). So saying that no one should make dietary changes to prevent heart disease, when diet affects cholesterol (a stated cause of heart disease), is an error.

Answer choice A does not describe a mistake here because even if it was true that lipoprotein(a) raises cholesterol levels, because lipoprotein(a) is said to be unaffected by diet that truth wouldn't matter to the conclusion (no reason for anyone to change diet). The reason to change diets is specific to cholesterol itself, and not lipoprotein(a).

Does that make sense?

[ylikate]

Thanks Jon. I appreciate the in-depth explaination

[rameday]

Helo,

Not sure why C is correct and D is right. My pre phrase was causal,and that I was looking for casual language so I selected D. I am a bit confused as to why D is wrong and C is correct.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi rameday,

Your line of reasoning shows one of the pitfalls of keyword matching: more often than not, it will lead you in the wrong direction. Test-makers know that students default to this approach as a shortcut, and have devised clever ways to circumvent it. Don't do it! Instead, think about the argument thoroughly and understand precisely why the conclusion is flawed.

In this particular instance, the author remarks that high cholesterol and heart disease are correlated, but then goes on to describe how some lipoprotein is also associated with heart disease. Because diet does not affect the level of that lipoprotein, the author concludes that dietary changes will not help prevent heart disease.

This line of reasoning is questionable for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that cholesterol is described as something commonly associated with heart disease. While a causal relationship between the two has not been proven, it is suggested by the first sentence. By concluding that dietary changes cannot decrease our risk of heart disease, the author ignores this possibility that such changes can lower our cholesterol levels, and in turn lower our risk.

To help you understand the flaw better, imagine I told you that smoking and cancer are associated, but also that asbestos has been found in the lungs of some cancer patients. Can you conclude that you can smoke all you want? Of course not. There could be multiple independent causes for the same effect.

Hope this helps!

[DlarehAtsok]

I fail to see where the author presents evidence that high cholesterol contributes to heart diseases. The stimulus only claims that high cholesterol levels have been associated with heart disease (possibly even wrongly from the wording). The crux of the matter is that I cannot discern the author tone when s/he accepts that for some people cholesterol levels affects the heart diseases (to me it sounds more that the author accepts that the general belief is that, but s/he does not provide an opinion on the issue).

Thank you!

[Claire Horan]

Hi Dlareh Atsok,

The author's conclusion is in the last sentence, and it implies that diet doesn't contribute to heart disease. Answer (C) refers to the first sentence as evidence that cholesterol does relate to heart disease (and the question assumes you know that cholesterol is consumed as part of a diet). You note that the claim in sentence 1 is about an association, not a proof of a causal relationship. But associations are evidence of a causal relationship--they just aren't conclusive evidence.

Remember that evidence is anything that supports or strengthens a conclusion--it need not justify the conclusion. In law, there is a saying about evidence: "a brick is not a wall." Bricks = pieces of evidence, wall= conclusion (not to be confused with Powerscore's house metaphor).

[Tuothekhazar]

Hi folks

Here is how my train goes, and I really hope that my 2 cents can contribute 2 every's success here. Please also let me know that If there is anything wrong to help me improve.


Some People with H.C do not have HD

Inference: Some people with HC do have HD

2. Some People w/o H.C do have HD

Inference: Some people without HC do not have HD

3. Some people with heart disease caused by H.C have above the average BPL

Inference: Some people with heart disease caused by H.C do not have above the average BPL.

4. D change H.C level -> No change on the level BPL


Conclusion:

Diet change serves no reason for anyone prevent heart disease.


So, does the level of BPL really correlated with people who have heart disease caused by H.C ? We don’t know, and that’s the issue. From 3 and also the inferences of 3, we know that the level of BPL seems unnecessary to be high or low for people who have heart disease caused by H.C and that, based on 1 and inference of 1, we know that some people with HC do have HD. Then based on the incident that event1( Diet Change ) does not necessary to change event2 ( Level of BPL ),which also being unnecessary to the event 3 ( Some People who have heart disease caused by high cholesterol ), the supported claim that event 1 does not change event 3, could be argued that Arthur ignores the possibility that there might be event N being necessary to Event 3 ( Some People who have heart disease caused by high cholesterol ) , and event 1 ( Diet Change ) can necessary change event N.

If we can find that event N and also the evidence that event N be necessary to Event 3. Then there “ is “ a reason that diet change for at "least someone" can prevent heart disease.


Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?


A.It fails to consider the possibility that lipoprotein(a) raises cholesterol levels.

Based on the premises, BPL is never either sufficient or necessary to cholesterol levels.

B.It provides no evidence for a link between lipoprotein(a) and heart disease.

Its a trap. Some people with heart disease caused by high cholesterol do / do not have above the average BPL. There should be no link. Hence, no evidences should be provided.

C.It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease.

From premises, we know this group of people with heart disease caused by high cholesterol, exists, and it truly ignores this evidence that this group of people might have a necessary factor, which could be necessary changed by changing the diet. Had it not ignored this evidence and possibility that a potential necessary factor exists, we have “reason” for " at least someone "from the group of people who have heart disease due to high cholesterol to change diet for preventing heart disease.

D.It fails to consider the possibility that poor diets cause some people to develop health problems other than heart disease.

Out of scope.

E.It offers no explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease.

This is not what we want, since what we want to know is if there are at least some people with heart disease caused by cholesterol. Knowing the explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease does not necessary mean that the explanation could also tell us if some people with high cholesterol level actually heart disease have anything to do with changing their diet. Hence, its not the flaw of the argument.

Thank you for reading

Tuothekhazar

[JocelynL]

I eliminated C because I took the first sentence as just a correlation, it does not prove anything. This question really confused me with how we treat correlation on the test. It seems to be treating a correlation of "high cholesterol levels have been associated with the development of heart disease" to causation with "high cholesterol contributes to heart disease". This just seemed like a logical leap to me. Please help.