#7 - The incidence in Japan of most types of cancer is

[UnicornChainsaw]

Hello! I was hoping I might be able to get some clarification on why an answer would be correct over another answer.

*Question removed due to LSAC copyright restrictions*

So the correct answer is D. However, as I read it, it seems like it is a "Most Strongly Supports" type question belonging to the first family and thus the correct answer cannot introduce any new information. My answer was E, because both the Japanese immigrants and the North American diet were discussed in the stimulus. Why is the correct answer able to introduce new information about Genetics when that is not addressed in the stimulus?

Thank you!
UC

[Charlie Melman]

Hi Unicorn,

It's tough to see, but the reason why answer choice (E) is wrong is because of the word "fats." It's reasonable to infer that the North American diet is causing the health problems, but the stimulus says nothing about what it is in the diet that is problematic. Is it fat? Sugar? Cholesterol? We don't know.

Answer choice (D) is allowed to bring in outside info because it rules out an alternate possibility. The stimulus suggests that the problem is the North American diet. That means it's not anything else, and a protective genetic trait is included in "anything else."

Hope this clears things up!

[Lauryn]

Hello! I was hoping someone could explain why A is incorrect. I was debating between A and D (and I can see why D is a good answer) but decided to pick A because "especially considering...included" seemed to indicate the stimulus is implying industrial pollution causes higher cancer rates. I thought the author was simply saying that Japan is an exception to the tendency and the answer choice seemed to match in tone (not too extreme). Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, Lauryn, the stimulus does NOT imply anything about pollution! Don't make assumptions that are not based on the text! All we know about pollution is that they have it in Japan. That means pollution is NOT the thing that differentiates people in Japan from people in other places with a "modern life-style" (whatever that is). We cannot tell anything about how pollution does or does not affect cancer rates from this info.

All we can do it eliminate genetics as the thing that differentiates Japanese people from others, because when those people move to North America and adopt a North American diet, they start getting just as much cancer as North Americans get. Maybe that's do to diet, maybe to stress or other cultural factors, maybe to something else, but it is for sure NOT genetic.

In any event, if Japan has the same level of pollution as other modern places, and if the cancer rates there are LOWER than elsewhere, how can answer A be true? If anything, the stimulus should suggest that pollution is NOT the major causal factor for cancer!

Beware of bringing in your own assumptions, or looking for inferences that are not supported by the text. Rely only on what you were told in the stimulus!

[nickp18]

Hi PowerScore team,

I also selected "E", but am still confused as to why we are allowed to bring in new information. After reading through the LR Bible, I didn't find anything that states we are allowed to bring in new info only if it eliminates another possibility.

I apologize if this question is redundant, but any help clearing this issue up for me would be appreciated!

[Robert Carroll]

nickp18,

Answer choice (D) is not really bringing in new information. The information itself is inconsistent with the negation of answer choice (D) - if there IS a genetic basis for the relatively low cancer rates in Japan, then those low rates should be consistent wherever Japanese people move. But the stimulus says that's not true - Japanese people get higher cancer rates if they move, for instance, to North America. So, whatever the cause of the low cancer rates among the Japanese in Japan, it's not plausible that it's genetic, because the facts in the stimulus are already inconsistent with that hypothesis.

I think it can be helpful to conceptualize the relationship between the stimulus and the correct answer choice for a Must Be True question as a conditional: IF the stimulus is true, THEN this answer is necessary. As with any conditional, it's equivalent to its own contrapositive: IF the answer is a false statement, THEN the stimulus would also be false. The latter obtains here - the negation of answer choice (D) is inconsistent with the stimulus, so the stimulus itself makes answer choice (D) true.

Robert Carroll

[ericsilvagomez]

Hi,

I chose answer choice E. Although I was skeptical about it because it mentioned "fats," and the stimulus did not discuss that, I did not think the other answer choices could be correct. My logic might be wrong, but I did not choose answer choice D because the stimulus did not discuss any protective genetic trait. Any help would be appreciated!

[Robert Carroll]

ericsilvagomez,

As I pointed out in the post directly above yours, if a genetic trait accounted for the difference, it would account for it wherever the Japanese lived. Since their health changes when they move, but their genetics wouldn't, a genetic trait cannot account for the difference.

Robert Carroll