#15 - Few, if any, carbonated beverages contain calcium

[Adam Tyson]

I don't know that that's relevant, because answer E still doesn't do anything to eliminate a cause. There's just no connection between that answer choice and the incidence of broken bones.

[yuxuan]

The argument is caffeine inside carbonated beverages caused calcium deficiency. I chose B because teenagers engage in high risk activities causing broken bones could be an alternative explanation of the higher incidence of broken bones in teenagers.

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure I see how answer E does anything even if this was an absolute causal argument. It's not giving an alternate cause for the difference in the two groups. It isn't showing the cause without the effect or the effect without the cause. It's not reversing the causal relationship and it's not raising questions about the data on which the conclusion was based. Answer E just doesn't do anything one way or another.

[lsc2024]

The conclusion will be undermined if an answer choice shows that such teenagers experience calcium deficiency for some reason other than drinking the caffeine in carbonated beverages.

This is why, on my review of this question, I thought it was C. First time was B, but during review I realized the stimulus made no comparison to other age groups.

[jimmy1115]

Dear powerscore admin,

There are two causal premises in this chain: 1)coffee causes people to excrete calcium and 2)calcium deficiencies can make bones more brittle; and concludes that coffee leads to calcium deficiencies thereby it probably is the primary causes of a higher incidence of broken bones.

I understand that Answer (A) weakens that absolute causal chain: 'coffee causes calcium deficiencies' by presenting alternative causes, but wouldn't answer (C) also do a similar work by presenting 'cause absent, effect present'? I know 'some' is relatively weak, but wouldn't that present an exception that can weaken the causal relations as well?

Thank you
Jimmy

[Dana D]

Hey Jimmy,

Let's assume Answer Choice (C) is true. If some teens already have calcium deficiencies, what would happen if they drank caffeine? According to the argument, they would have an even greater deficiency, and we have no reason to think this would not be the case, so the argument is weakened.

This cause and effect question is a little unique in that having a calcium deficiency is not a binary outcome - people can be more or less deficient than others and still all be "deficient" category because they are all below a certain threshold of intake they should be hitting. Similarly, the incidence of broken bones is on a spectrum - according to the argument, more caffeine would mean a higher calcium deficit which would lead to more broken bones - so whether you are starting with someone who is at a calcium surplus and then introducing caffeine into the mix or you are starting with a teenager who already has a calcium deficit, the introduction of caffeine would lead to increased incidences of broken bones.