#25 - A 1991 calculation was made to determine what, if any

[voodoochild]

Can you please explain why B) is incorrect? Doesn't it place a dent in the reasoning in the sense that patients do not know about the benefits of exercise. It's not that they do not exercise voluntarily but they don't know about it....Thoughts?

[Steve Stein]

The author's conclusion is that when people make the choice not to exercise it places a burden on society. Answer choice B doesn't weaken this conclusion, because it doesn't really come into play what leads to that choice, or how informed a choice it is.

Correct answer choice C provides a cause, other than choice, for the sedentary lifestyle--physical conditions that create a predisposition to a sedentary lifestyle.

Let me know whether that's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Why? For instance, patients don't know that they should exercise. They are not told by the doctors to exercise. It's not that they are not voluntarily willing to exercise. Doesn't it weaken the answer choice?


Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response!

It's a subtle distinction, but the issue that you are discussing is that of how the choice to be sedentary was made. Whether that choice was based on being poorly informed, lack of good advice, love of tv, bad decision-making, or whatever else, if something has led people to choose to be sedentary, that does not weaken the author's conclusion about the choice to be sedentary:

some cause choice sedentary life societal detriment

Do you see how what led to that choice is not really relevant?

The correct answer choice, meanwhile, provides a completely different cause--physical conditions that lead to a predisposition to a sedentary lifestyle--this calls into question the author's conclusion about the detrimental effects caused by people's choosing to be sedentary:

Physical predisposition sedentary life societal detriment.


I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this clears that one up--thanks!

~Steve

[jrc3813]

I'm having trouble eliminating A. As far as I understand the argument it goes: 1) A study found that sedentary lifestyle leads to social detriment. 2) Therefore voluntary choice leads to social detriment.

The author equates voluntary choice not to exercise to sedentary lifestyle. So to weaken this argument you must weaken this link. C weakens it by showing an alternate cause of sedentary lifestyle. It seems like A weakens it though by saying the people that voluntarily choose not to exercise don't neccesarily live a sedentary lifestyle. It basically goes:

A causes B

C A

Therefore C causes B

Then answer A comes along and says C does not neccesarily imply A, and therefore
the link between C and B is weakened.

Also, is the calculation/study saying that sedentary lifestyles cause increased costs or that there is merely a correlation?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi JRC,

I would interpret the phrase "physical exertion" as synonymous with exercise. If people physically exert themselves at work, but not at home after work, then these people are still counted among those who exercise, and thus do not lead a sedentary lifestyle.

Answer choice (A) therefore only tells us something about the exercise routine of people who exercise; i.e. some do it at work and not at home. We may think of exercise as jogging or yoga, but people who physically exert themselves 8 hours a day at work do still exercise.

[jrc3813]

Hi JRC,

I would interpret the phrase "physical exertion" as synonymous with exercise. If people physically exert themselves at work, but not at home after work, then these people are still counted among those who exercise, and thus do not lead a sedentary lifestyle.

Answer choice (A) therefore only tells us something about the exercise routine of people who exercise; i.e. some do it at work and not at home. We may think of exercise as jogging or yoga, but people who physically exert themselves 8 hours a day at work do still exercise.

Thank you for the response. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one. For some reason the language in the stimulus is throwing me off. For example, does the calculation say that there's only a correlation between sedentary lifestyles and increased health care costs? The author seems to be interpreting the study to be about causation, in which case that would be flawed.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi jrc,

I am jumping in for Francis here and to a certain degree this is about correlation vs causation, so well done with that!

But what I am also seeing in this stimulus is a classic "straw man" argument. In other words, it's a mischaracterization of what the initial premises are telling us. For example, people who are severely restricted in their movement because of a childhood disease can hardly be classified as making a "voluntary choice not to exercise." People who are in a catatonic state are sedentary and therefore adding to extra healthcare costs, but they are not making a choice to be catatonic. People who in comas are sedentary but not voluntarily so. So there are all these groups that are sedentary who have no choice in the matter, contrary to the author's conclusion that a voluntary choice is being made for every single sedentary person. Therefore, the author's conclusion is highly suspect for this reason.

Answer Option (A) therefore, does not weaken the author's conclusion because it does not address groups like I mentioned above. On the other hand, Answer (C) does address those groups quite well and is therefore correct.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!