#22 - A recent study confirms that nutritious breakfasts

[crharke42]

I answered C and it says that that answer was selected 46% and the correct answer A was selected only 43% of the time.

I understand why A is correct because it shows that when the cause occurs, the effect occurs.

C: Eating nutritious breakfast E: Productivity increase

Answer A says that Plant B not eating a lot of nutritious breakfasts caused them to not increase their productivity.

However I do not understand why answer C does not work.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, crharke, and I can totally see where you are coming from. Looking at this from a purely causal standpoint, answer choice C looks like it might be a good example of "where the cause is absent, the effect is absent", seeming to confirm (or at least strengthen) the purported causal relationship.

Here's the problem with answer C: the question really isn't about causal reasoning, per se. While it's true that the study concludes that there is a causal relationship, the argument is really about the study itself. Note how it starts off with "a recent study confirms..." What we want to do, then, is more than just show that the causal relationship is right. We want to show that the study confirms that relationship. In other words, we want to show that the study is good.

Answer choice C doesn't do that at all. While it might have some impact on our causal argument, it does nothing to confirm that validity of the study. Does it matter that the two groups were equally productive in the prior month? Not at all. What we need to know is whether the two groups were alike in every way during the study except that Group A ate nutritious breakfasts and Group B did not. If there was some other difference, or if they both ate equally nutritious breakfasts, either of those things would tend to undermine the validity of the study, so our strengthen answer will say that those things did not happen.

Did that make sense?

Good luck!

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[deborahjeng]

I actually had the same question. My problem is that it was hard for me to see that problem lies with the study instead of the causal relationship. I know that the problem starts with "a recent study confirms..." but a lot of other questions start off the same way and they do not necessarily have problems in regards to the study themselves.

How do I determine when I need to find a problem with the study or when I need find a problem with the causal relationship?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The key is in focusing on the main conclusion of the argument, which in this case was about the study itself - "a recent study confirms" is what they are trying to prove. Change that conclusion to just read "Nutritious breakfasts make workers more productive" and then you have a straightforward causal argument, and the typical causal flaws, and their corresponding weakens and strengthens come up, making C a much better answer. Since the author is actually not arguing that the causal argument is true, but instead arguing that the study confirms it, we know that we first want to support the study to strengthen that argument.

Adam

[Basia W]

Good afternoon,

I see that this is a causal augment and that supposedly nutritious breakfasts cause more productivity. I chose B) because I thought it would eliminate an alternate cause for the stated effect (more work time caused the productivity rather than breakfast). I had also put A as a contender- why is A more correct in this case?

Best.

Basia

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Basia,

A is correct because it lets us know that there really is a difference in the nutritional content of the breakfasts consumed; if workers from Plant B were also eating nutritious breakfasts, then that couldn't explain the difference in productivity.
B is irrelevant. Even if they started work at the same time every day, one team could still be staying later than the other, for example. It just doesn't provide us additional information.

Does that help?

[Basia W]

Yes it does!

Thanks

[eober]

Hi,

How can we say that answer choice A strengthens the argument? Isn't "a few" same as "some" which is anywhere between 1-100? In the extreme case if 100 of the workers in Plant B consumed nutritious breakfast that would actually weaken the argument.

Could you provide some explanation? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

"Few" is definitely not the same as "some". You're right that "some" includes "all" - it can be mathematically expressed as anything other than zero (Some > 0). "Few", on the other hand, is not mathematical but relative - it means "a small number" or "a low amount" or perhaps "a low percentage." "Few" could never include all, and probably doesn't include more than half. Can't say for sure, though, because it is just a relative term.

In that question, if few (a relatively small number of) workers in group B had the nutritious breakfast it would strengthen the argument by reinforcing the difference between the two groups - A had the good stuff and B did not. Looked at another way, it eliminates the obvious counter-argument - just because the folks in B didn't get a free good breakfast doesn't mean they didn't have one.

[LsatSoon2BMaster]

Hi all,

So it asked to strengthen the study or what not.

I got it down to A and B. I went this B which was wrong. I would think that them starting work at the same time would strengthen the study because it rules out a possible problem in the study. I understand why A is correct but it would help if someone explained why B is incorrect. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!