#2 - Switching to "low-yield" cigarettes, those that yield

[Anali]

Hi!

I was a bit confused when I read the stimulus the first time around. How can the result be surprising if the ingredients in them are known to contribute to heart disease?

I selected answer choice (E) for this question and eliminated the other answer choices for the following reasons:

Answer choice (A): We would have to make the added assumption that people smoke more often because smoking low-yield cigarettes has become fashionable. I eliminated this AC because of the additional work required for this to be true.

Answer choice (B): This AC is more broad; it discusses smokers in general. The stimulus is concerned about those who switch to low-yield cigarettes and the surprising result that it has not led to reduced incidence of heart attacks.

Answer choice (C) and (D): Like answer choice (B), these ACs do not tells us why low-yield cigarettes has not reduced incidences of heart attacks.



Answer choice (E): This AC discusses people that switched from high-yield cigarettes to low-yield cigarettes and addresses how heart attacks/heart disease has not been reduced, despite the switch: these individuals increase the number and depth of puffs so they can maintain the level of nicotine they are accustomed to.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi anali,

Great analysis of the question and answer choices and very well done in picking the correct answer. I think what you are noticing, which is atypical in a Resolve the Paradox question, is the author's conclusion about it being "surprising." Typically, in these Resolve stimuli, one does not get a conclusion, one only gets premises. The conclusion, written from the viewpoint of the author, was something that the LSAT added for perspective to the stimulus. In other words, it was common vernacular meant to mimic a real person talking and making an argument. In other words, don't get too hung up on it as it will not help you find the right answer, as you note.

Thanks for the great work and please keep it up!

[Anali]

Thank you for the explanation, Nicholas.

[ebgordo2]

My confusion for this question stems from the fact that the "low yield" cigarettes were tested on a "standard machine." But the correct AC involves human behavior, which isn't tied to the language in the stimulus. It seems like the stimulus, for E to be the correct answer choice, would have to imply that the test involved some randomized control trial of some sort.

[Zach Foreman]

Anali: What is "surprising" is the lack of a reduction in the effect (heart attack) even though there is a reduction in the cause (nicotine and carbon monoxide). If the cause is reduced, shouldn't he effect be reduced? That there is no change seems a surprise.

ebgordo: The "standard machine" is a key detail that was very important to catch. If the only difference was that people ingested lower amounts of heart-attack-causing substances, one would expect a lower incidence of heart attacks. However, the fact that it was on a machine points to another difference, a difference of ingestion, compensating for the reduced substances. A machine will "inhale" X amount of smoke per puff and puff Y times per minute. A human, however, may inhale more deeply and puff more often if the yield is reduced. Imagine someone substituting apples for cookies, but ends up eating so many apples that they get just as many, if not more calories.

So, you are correct that the correct AC is not directly tied, but the language of the stimulus should help guide your prephrase. Side 1 of paradox: "CO and nicotine cause heart attacks", Side 2: "Reducing yield of CO and nicotine (as measured by standard machine) has no effect on heart attack rates." How can both be correct? We attack the method of measurement and hypothesize that perhaps the way the machine measures is not accurate to how a real human behaves.

[ebgordo2]

Thank you for that explanation Zach. I totally did not make that observation. Your explanation is a great help!