#24 - Studies have found that human tears contain many of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this example the author provides a few facts and then draws a questionable conclusion. Human tears contain many of the same hormones that are produced by the body under conditions of emotional stress. Since the shedding of tears can flush out significant quantities of such hormones, the author concludes, crying must actually reduce levels of emotional stress.
The question that follows asks for the flaw in the author’s reasoning. The issue with this argument is that the mere presence of such hormones under stressful conditions does not indicate that they are the cause of emotional stress. As such, reduction of those hormone levels through crying would not necessarily have the effect of reducing stress.

• Cause Effect
  crying reduce emotional stress (?)

Answer choice (A): The flaw in the author’s reasoning is that a causal conclusion is drawn based on a mere correlation. This choice suggests that the author should consider that something else might be the cause of crying’s ability to reduce emotional stress. Since this potentially confusing answer choice does not describe the flaw in the stimulus, it cannot be the right answer to this Flaw question.

Answer choice (B): This choice describes the conditional reasoning flaw of a mistaken reversal: confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one. Since the flaw in the author’s reasoning is not a conditional one, this cannot be the right answer choice.

Answer choice (C): This choice might be initially appealing, because it does include causal language. This answer, however, suggests that the author fails to address the possibility that crying contributes to reduced stress, and that reduced stress also contributes to crying. Since this is not the case, this choice should be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (D): This choice suggests that the author needs to distinguish between two joint causes of emotional stress reduction. The problem, however, is that the author confuses a causal relationship with a correlation, not that the author fails to distinguish between two joint causes.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed, although the referenced hormones are present under conditions of emotional stress, that does not mean that they are the cause. Since the author has no justification for jumping to this causal conclusion, this is the correct answer to the Flaw question.

[ylikate]

I am really confused about what choice E is saying. What is the substance and condition, is it tears and removal of hormone respectively?
I thought the flaw was that removal of hormone is not the same as removal of emotional stress. E suggests causal vs. correlation.
Can someone help the flaw and answer choice E please?

[Ron Gore]

Hi, Kate!

This is a Method of Reasoning - Flaw question. You're absolutely right that answer choice (E), the correct answer, describes the flaw of mistaking correlation for causation.

The flaw in the argument is that it mistakenly infers that since the hormones removed by shedding tears are produced in times of emotional stress, then those same hormones must cause emotional stress.

We know this because the conclusion states that crying must remove emotional stress. Since all the stimulus told us about crying (i.e., shedding tears) was that it removes significant quantities of the hormones from the body, then the argument apparently takes the position that removing the hormones removes the stress. So, we can infer that the argument treats the hormones as the cause of the stress. You remove the cause, and the effect is removed as well.

So, the improper inferential leap from correlation to causation described in answer choice (E) is the jump from the hormones being produced in times of emotional stress to the hormones being the cause of emotional stress. In answer choice (E), the "substances" referenced are the hormones, and the "condition" referenced is the occurrence of emotional stress.

Please let me know if I can be of further help.

Ron

[SherryZ]

Dec 2012 LSAT, Sec 2 LR, Q 24:

Hi there, could you explain why D is right? D says "it fails to distinguish between 2 distinct factor that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon". Which 2 distinct factors that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon is D talking about?

Thank you!

---Sherry

[David Boyle]

Dec 2012 LSAT, Sec 2 LR, Q 24:

Hi there, could you explain why D is right? D says "it fails to distinguish between 2 distinct factor that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon". Which 2 distinct factors that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon is D talking about?

Thank you!

---Sherry

Hello Sherry,

Actually, E is the correct answer. I think it's self-explanatory, but write us back if you have any questions!
Good luck tomorrow if you are taking the test!!

Hope this helps,
David

[mmclaughlin]

I had a similar problem with this exercise as Sherry did. I can't figure out why E is correct and C is incorrect. I have been able to disqualify the other answer choices, but E has me stumped.

Thanks for the help!

[Robert Carroll]

m,

The argument in the stimulus relies on a supposed connection between the hormones and emotional stress. The author thinks that by shedding tears which contains those hormones, one is removing some of the hormones from the body. So far, so good; if tears contain those hormones, and the tears are shed, then of course the hormones are removed from the body. But then the author concludes that this removal will reduce emotional stress. This would be true only if the hormones were the cause of the emotional stress, so that removing the cause would remove the effect. This is not plausible! Just because these hormones are there doesn't mean they cause the emotional stress. So answer choice (E) identifies the problem - a mere correlation does not mean causation.

Answer choice (C) does not contain the error in reasoning. The problem was not that the hormones and emotionally stress could cause each other, but that the evidence of hormones causing emotional stress in the first place was not present. That is why (E) is the answer.

Robert Carroll

[Sherry001]

Hello,
I was able to get the correct answer for this question, only because I was able to spot the flaw before looking at the answer choices. But there were a few answers that made me doubt myself a bit. Just because, I saw them as attacking the gap in the reasoning.

Here's how I approached this question:

1- tears have many of the same hormones that the body produces In times of stress.
2-shedding removes significant quantities of these hormones.

Conclusion : crying must have the effect of reducing emotional stress.

My analysis before looking at the choices: I see a correlation and the author concludes a causation , which is a big Nono.

A) C) D) : all three of these choices had my attention . Because I am so used to attacking a conclusion that is causal by using the five method of attacking causality . ( find an alternate cause, show the relationship is reversed )... However the only reason I went with E was because I felt all of these choices were confirming a causal relationship that should not have been concluded in the first place. Now if this was a weaken question I feel these would have worked.
What do you think ? -am I wrong in my reasoning for the elimination of these choices ?


Thank you
Sherry

[Ladan Soleimani]

Hi Sherry,

This is a difficult question and the wording in the answer choices is confusing. Great job on recognizing the causation flaw in the stimulus! The other answer choices would not work for a weaken question even though they do seem to be pointing out other ways we would generally use to attack a causal relationship. Having a clear understanding of what exactly is wrong with the stimulus will help you separate out the multiple choices addressing causation flaws.

Your breakdown of the premises and conclusion is spot on. The problem with the argument is that the conclusion only works if the hormones are causing the emotional stress. If the hormones cause the stress, then removing the hormones should reduce stress; however, the author has not established that the hormones cause stress, just that these hormones are present during times of stress. Answer choice (E) directly matches up with this problem: takes for granted that because certain substances (hormones) are present whenever a condition occurs (emotional stress), those substances are a cause of that condition.

Does that help clarify things?
Ladan

[lsat2016]

Hello,

I'm a little confused with the wording of E as well.
Specifically, doesn't "the human body produces tears in times of emotionally stress" point to a causal relationship? Couldn't it be translated to if emotionally stressed, then the body produces tears? If so, then what distinguishes between something that's present whenever a condition occurs and a causal relationship?

Thank you!!