#4 - Most small children are flat-footed. This failure of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the author presents the traditional method of flat foot treatment: special, supportive shoes, which are intended to avoid the possible discomfort that might result later (if not treated).

To respond to this Weaken question, we must consider each answer choice as if true, and consider the consequences for the author's conclusion or, in this case, the reliability of the traditional special shoes. The correct answer choice will be the choice which, if true, would show some reason to question whether the traditional method works.

Answer choice (A): Since the sample under consideration only includes those with flat feet as children, this information about other children is irrelevant, and this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This comparison of flat-footedness to another type of foot problem does not have anything to do with whether or not the traditional approach of special shoes is effective.

Answer choice (C): This incorrect answer might be the closest so far; at least it concerns the effectiveness of the traditional method—to a very limited extent, however. The knowledge that "some" children fail to benefit from the special shoes does not really tell us much—this could be one child. We need to be able to somehow assess the effectiveness of the special shoes.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If there is no discernable difference between those who have used the traditional method and those who haven't, then the reliability of the traditional method is clearly called into question.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect for much the same reason that answer choice (A) is incorrect: it deals with a group that is outside the relevant sample.

[glenm]

#1 about flat feet.

If the conclusion is that supportive shoes are effective at treating flat feet, then I don't understand how D weakens the argument since D states,

flat footed kids that don't wear the shoes are less likely to develop arches as kids that wear the shoes,
What I am missing that doesn't seem to weaken the argument.

[Nikki Siclunov]

The following causal relationship underlies the author's argument:

Supportive shoes (cause) Avoid discomfort later in life

If there is no discernible difference between those who have used supportive shoes and those who have not, then the traditional method is called into question. I think you misread what answer choice (D) states: flat-footed kids who do not wear the special shoes are as likely (not "less likely", as you said in your post) to develop natural arches as are those who wear the special shoes.

Does this help? Let me know.

[glenm]

You are correct, I misread that I answer. Thanks for your help

[netherlands]

Hi there,

Ok, I got this one right the first time. But the second time I did go back and review and notice that a couple of things:

1) In the online explanation you guys eliminated C based off the fact that "some" remain flat-footed and since this doesn't tell us a lot about the numbers, it also doesn't tell us a lot about effectiveness. I can see that... but I think that I eliminated it because it didn't tell us anything about whether the people they're referring to even used the special shoes. Is that an ok reason for elimination. I mean, yea, I could infer that they're talking about children who actually wore the shoes - but don't know that.

2) I chose "D" for the same reason you guys did, pretty much. But then also recognized something that we hear in class a lot, about how if there is a claim that A CAUSES B, then a good way to weaken that could be to shoe that B OCCURS without A. So effect without the cause.

I kind of noticed that that's what D was doing the second time around, and just thought that was interesting ... even though I don't think you guys classified this as a causal relationship weaken question. EVEN THOUGH! I also looked and thought that "fosters development" could also mean "produces" and that's one of the indicators I think we have for cause and effect.

I realize this isn't really a question! But always helpful to get your opinions on the way my brain is interpreting things!

Thank you!

[Steve Stein]

Hi netherlands,

Answer choice C is incorrect for many reasons. If it had said that all children with flat feet remain flat-footed for life, that would be a great reason to a great reason to question the efficacy of the traditional treatment. It also, as you correctly point out, provided no insight into the effectiveness of the shoes on those who wear them.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[mikrnej]

Hi there,

Could you clarify what the conclusion is in the stimulus? I had trouble when I wanted to pre-phrase the correct answer before moving onto the answer choices.

Initially, I thought the second sentence was the conclusion and it had a causal indicator in it. I diagrammed it as C: flat-footed => E: discomfort & pain. Before moving onto the answers, I had the rules to weaken a causal conclusion ready in my mind. I realized none of the ACs really matched that causal relationship. I noticed in the previous posts, the causal relationship noted in the conclusion was C: special shoes => E: avoid discomfort & pain. I can understand how it came to this, but I would just like to confirm/clarify the conclusion.

Also, on another note, if a weaken question stem states a reference to the stim that it wants us to weaken (such as this particular stem), does that always indicate the conclusion?

Thank you!!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Mikrnej!

That's a really good question. What makes this question interesting is that we are not given a clear conclusion in the stimulus. Instead there is merely a set of facts.

The question stem however gives us guidance on what to weaken: we are supposed to choose which answer choice "most calls into question the efficacy of the traditional treatment described above."

Although the stimulus did not say that the traditional method is effective, the question stem specifically tells us to weaken that idea. If you'd like you can think of the conclusion as "this treatment is effective."

As for your final question, I think you got the idea here. Just remember to always read the question stem carefully. If it specifically tells you to weaken some idea, then that is what you are supposed to weaken. There are a few very rare examples of the question stem asking you to weaken an intermediate conclusion or even a premise. You don't see those much, but it is best to not make assumptions when you are taking the LSAT. Instead, read every sentence carefully.

[kwcflynn]

I thought the last sentence contained conditional reasoning, "Traditionally, flat-footedness in children has been treated by having the children wear special shoes that give extra support to the foot, in order to foster the development of the arch."

Sufficient: Foster the development of the arch.
Necessary: Flat-footed children must wear special shoes that give extra support to the foot.

Please let me know if I am on the right track, or if the stimulus includes causal reasoning.

THANK YOU

[Jay Donnell]

Hi kwcflynn!

This stimulus certainly contains causal language, and the correct response works by using one of our predicted ways to weaken causal arguments. The traditional method to treat children with flat feet is to give them special shoes designed to foster the development of the arch (wearing the shoes causes the arch to develop), but D implies that flat-footed children without the shoes are just as likely to develop natural arches, which weakens by showing that the effect occurred without the cause.

You're right to see the phrase "in order to" as a common conditional indicator that functions similarly to "if", but in this instance the phrase is intended to declare the goal for the treatment plan of the special shoes. In your post, you included as your "necessary" condition that "Flat-footed children must wear special shoes that give extra support to the foot," and it's important to realize that this sense of necessity was never present in the original claim.

Strengthen and Weaken questions involve causal language in nearly 50% of their appearances on the exam, but rarely utilize conditional reasoning. Not to say that it can't happen of course, but it significantly more likely to see causal language in these stimuli.

This is a particularly annoying fine-tuned point, but I hope that explanation helped clear things up a bit!