#12 - Poor nutrition is at the root of the violent behavior

[concrottrox11@gmail.com]

Hi,

Do you need to reword the cause and effect here of the conclusion to "better nutrition-->less violence" instead of "poor nutrition--->violent behavior"? If so why, and how would I know to do this?

[Robert Carroll]

concrottrox11,

If poor nutrition causes violent behavior, by definition better nutrition would improve behavior. That's a simple recognition that there is an inverse relationship between nutrition and behavior, so that both statements are valid.

In any cause and effect relationship, all other things being equal, less of the cause should produce less of the effect. That's just a general feature of causation.

Robert Carroll

[concrottrox11@gmail.com]

Why is the conclusion: better nutrition-> less violence instead of poor nutrition-> violent behavior or high nutrition-> better behavior?

C) I do not understand why answer choice C would be wrong because it does mention "nutrition" in the passage and there is a link between poor nutrition->violent behavior?

E) isn't answer choice E a mistaken reversal because it claims if not high nutrition-> no improvement in behavior?

[Robert Carroll]

concrottrox11,

There's not much daylight between any of those statements. If poor nutrition leads to violent behavior, then better nutrition will lead to better, i.e. less violent, behavior.

A low-nutrient food does not do anything to prove that someone has a diet low in nutrition. There are at least two reasons. First, one item of food does not define a person's diet - a person with an overall good diet could have a "cheat" day. Second, a low-nutrient food isn't negative for nutrition. A person with a high-nutrient diet who also eats a low-nutrient food has...a high-nutrient diet. Just as much as they ever did! In order to make answer choice (C) work, we have to assume at least one of two things - that the low-nutrient food was typical of that person's diet, or that the low-nutrient food replaced a higher-nutrient food and thus made the person's diet lower in nutrients. In fact, I don't think the second assumption works without the first, nor the first without the second, so we need two assumptions beyond what the answer choice says to even make it work.

As Kelsey noted earlier in this thread, this is a cause and effect argument. Terms like "Mistaken Reversal" are meaningless if we're talking about causation. It's a conditional term and this argument isn't conditional. So your objections to answer choice (E) based on conditional language are not relevant.

Robert Carroll

[limersereau@gmail.com]

Hi -- for this question, I am curious why answer choice E is better than answer choice D? I understand why answer choice E is helpful in showing that when the cause does not occur then the effect does not occur (I believe). But doesn't D also strengthen by showing that the C causes E? I might be missing something basic. Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi limersereau,

For answer choice (D), it somewhat suggests that there's a different cause altogether. Inmates that choose the high-nutrient diet have another cause---what causes them to choose that diet? That preceding cause weakens the causal relationship suggested by the stimulus.

Let's think of a similar causal relationship.

Both ice cream sales and murder rise in the summer months. You could imagine someone creating a causal relationship out of that connection--ice cream causes murder! However, if you look at the relationship a bit deeper, it turns out that heat causes ice cream sales, and also causes murder. A preceding cause hurts the initial causal relationship.

Hope that helps!