#4 - A survey published in a leading medical journal in the

[atierney]

Hello everyone,

Yes, just wanted to clarify further as to the nature of answer choice D, which definitely is a "gotcha" contender, but is also definitely not the best answer, especially not in comparison to answer choice C. Definitely, as mentioned above, being in "good health" is not the same as "having a beneficial impact on one's health," so for that reason (possibly even standing alone), answer choice D is not the correct answer in terms of identifying the particular flaw in the reasoning.

Notice also that D skips over the real flaw though. D is purely focused on the switch in wording, when, in actuality, the flaw is based on the inference of causality, or at least the relative weight (intended) given to the study results that merely found a correlation between aerobic exercise and lung disease. As we probably have long had ingrained in our minds, correlation is not causation, and this is actually the true flaw in the stimulus. The conclusion reads it "must" be the case, when such a definitive statement, about anything really, cannot be drawn purely on the results of the study. The fact that C identifies the true flaw, while D merely focuses on the association (which, i would agree, is still an error in this case), is why C is the best answer here.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[AspenHerman]

Hello everyone,

Yes, just wanted to clarify further as to the nature of answer choice D, which definitely is a "gotcha" contender, but is also definitely not the best answer, especially not in comparison to answer choice C. Definitely, as mentioned above, being in "good health" is not the same as "having a beneficial impact on one's health," so for that reason (possibly even standing alone), answer choice D is not the correct answer in terms of identifying the particular flaw in the reasoning.

Notice also that D skips over the real flaw though. D is purely focused on the switch in wording, when, in actuality, the flaw is based on the inference of causality, or at least the relative weight (intended) given to the study results that merely found a correlation between aerobic exercise and lung disease. As we probably have long had ingrained in our minds, correlation is not causation, and this is actually the true flaw in the stimulus. The conclusion reads it "must" be the case, when such a definitive statement, about anything really, cannot be drawn purely on the results of the study. The fact that C identifies the true flaw, while D merely focuses on the association (which, i would agree, is still an error in this case), is why C is the best answer here.

Let me know if you have further questions.

thank you evank28 and atierney.

[lsatstudent99966]

When I was practicing this question the first time, I identified two flaws: (1) mistaken correlation as causation; and (2) a language switch from "lower risks of lung cancer" to "beneficial effects on health."

But after reviewing the question, I think it probably didn't commit the second flaw.

The conclusion of the argument is that "aerobic exercise has a significant beneficial effect on people's health."

I feel like this conclusion is phrased carefully. It does not claim "aerobic exercise will allow people to have good health," nor does it claim "aerobic exercise will improve people's health (which might imply overall health)."

It only states that aerobic exercise provides one single significant beneficial effect on people's health, which is the reduced risk of lung cancer.

Because of this, even if aerobic exercise might have other countervailing or even harmful effects, the argument doesn't necessarily commit an illicit language shift. It could be true that aerobic exercise has no net positive effect (or even a negative impact overall), but the argument would still not be wrong to conclude aerobic exercise provides one significant beneficial effect—lower lung cancer risk (though, of course, there's still the first flaw of correlation vs. causation).

Does my understanding make sense? Thank you in advance!

[lsatstudent99966]

Because of this, even if aerobic exercise might have other countervailing or even harmful effects, the argument doesn't necessarily commit an illicit language shift.

Sorry! I mean "even if aerobic exercise might have other countervailing or even more harmful effects"