- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Mon Nov 04, 2024 3:49 pm
#110380
Hi LeBronSAT,
Before diving into the answers and how the words "phenomenon" and "phenomena" are used, let's just summarize the argument itself and prephrase the flaw.
I've reordered the premises for clarity.
Premise 1: Disease X usually causes higher angiotensinogen levels.
Premise 2: Angiotensinogen levels are (positively) correlated with blood pressure.
Conclusion: Disease X is a cause of high blood pressure.
This is a causal argument and contains one of the several possible causal flaws. Specifically, the argument assumes that the higher angiotensinogen levels are causing higher blood pressure (and then trying to make a causal chain from Disease X to higher angiotensinogen levels to higher blood pressure) when all that is established is that angiotensinogen levels are (positively) correlated with blood pressure. A prephrase for this flaw would be "the argument assumes a causal relationship on the basis of only a correlation." This prephrase should help in identifying Answer C.
For the purposes of the LSAT, the definition of "phenomenon" is basically "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen." To keep it simple, you can think of a phenomenon as a thing/fact that happens or happened. It's not referring to the correlation itself.
However, to see how the word is used in each Answer choice, you need to read each answer choice and understand how the word is being used in the context of the answer.
What makes these answers so tricky is that there are 3 different "phenomena" addressed in the stimulus and the wrong answers confuse/mix the terms or their relationships.
In Answer C, the correct answer, "the phenomena being correlated" refers to 1. an increase in a person's angiotensinogen and 2. an increase in a person's blood pressure. The argument improperly assumes that, because these two phenomena are correlated, that one (an increase in a person's angiotensinogen) causes the other (an increase in a person's blood pressure). This is the assumption (i.e. unstated premise) being made that is necessary for the conclusion that Disease X is a cause of high blood pressure.
Answer D describes "one phenomenon causing a second with the second causing the first." It is not clear from this answer which phenomenon this answer refers to, but either way it would be incorrect because nowhere in the argument does the argument mistakenly reverse the cause and effect of any of the phenomena.
Answer E states that the argument assumes (i.e. takes for granted) that if one phenomenon (presumably Disease X) causing a second phenomenon (presumably higher angiotensinogen levels) and this second phenomenon causing a third phenomenon (presumably higher blood pressure), then the first phenomenon cannot be the immediate cause of the third. This is not what happens in the argument. This would be describing an argument where three things were established to be linked in a causal chain and then the conclusion is that the first cause cannot directly cause the third. As is mentioned above, the real flaw is that a causal chain between the three phenomena has not been established by the argument. Instead the argument improperly assumes that the causal chain has been established by confusing the correlation between two phenonema for a causal relationship.
Before diving into the answers and how the words "phenomenon" and "phenomena" are used, let's just summarize the argument itself and prephrase the flaw.
I've reordered the premises for clarity.
Premise 1: Disease X usually causes higher angiotensinogen levels.
Premise 2: Angiotensinogen levels are (positively) correlated with blood pressure.
Conclusion: Disease X is a cause of high blood pressure.
This is a causal argument and contains one of the several possible causal flaws. Specifically, the argument assumes that the higher angiotensinogen levels are causing higher blood pressure (and then trying to make a causal chain from Disease X to higher angiotensinogen levels to higher blood pressure) when all that is established is that angiotensinogen levels are (positively) correlated with blood pressure. A prephrase for this flaw would be "the argument assumes a causal relationship on the basis of only a correlation." This prephrase should help in identifying Answer C.
For the purposes of the LSAT, the definition of "phenomenon" is basically "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen." To keep it simple, you can think of a phenomenon as a thing/fact that happens or happened. It's not referring to the correlation itself.
However, to see how the word is used in each Answer choice, you need to read each answer choice and understand how the word is being used in the context of the answer.
What makes these answers so tricky is that there are 3 different "phenomena" addressed in the stimulus and the wrong answers confuse/mix the terms or their relationships.
In Answer C, the correct answer, "the phenomena being correlated" refers to 1. an increase in a person's angiotensinogen and 2. an increase in a person's blood pressure. The argument improperly assumes that, because these two phenomena are correlated, that one (an increase in a person's angiotensinogen) causes the other (an increase in a person's blood pressure). This is the assumption (i.e. unstated premise) being made that is necessary for the conclusion that Disease X is a cause of high blood pressure.
Answer D describes "one phenomenon causing a second with the second causing the first." It is not clear from this answer which phenomenon this answer refers to, but either way it would be incorrect because nowhere in the argument does the argument mistakenly reverse the cause and effect of any of the phenomena.
Answer E states that the argument assumes (i.e. takes for granted) that if one phenomenon (presumably Disease X) causing a second phenomenon (presumably higher angiotensinogen levels) and this second phenomenon causing a third phenomenon (presumably higher blood pressure), then the first phenomenon cannot be the immediate cause of the third. This is not what happens in the argument. This would be describing an argument where three things were established to be linked in a causal chain and then the conclusion is that the first cause cannot directly cause the third. As is mentioned above, the real flaw is that a causal chain between the three phenomena has not been established by the argument. Instead the argument improperly assumes that the causal chain has been established by confusing the correlation between two phenonema for a causal relationship.
