#17 - Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is A.

The columnist makes a claim about causal uncertainty in the aggregate sense, arguing that it is impossible to know whether lax standards contributed to the aggregate rise in cancer rates near nuclear reactors. This claim is made based on the uncertainty that exists about causation of individual cases of cancer. The columnist ignores that sometimes it is possible to make aggregate inferences about causation from statistical models that do not require absolute certainty about single/individual instances of causation. This is our prephrase.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice A fits our prephrase and perfectly encapsulates the problem with making a claim about aggregate causal uncertainty (which can be overcome to some extent using statistical data and modeling) from a premise about causal uncertainty in individual instances (which is, in many cases, difficult to overcome).

Answer choice (B): Answer choice B describes a different kind of causal error than the stimulus exhibits. It describes the error of inferring there is a causal relationship between two things simply because one event happens after another event (i.e., "what follows a certain phenomenon"). Since this argument does not infer a causal relationship, and does not discuss the sequence of events, this cannot be an accurate description.

Answer choice (C): Answer choice C describes an overgeneralization, taking evidence drawn from a "particular" (i.e. single) case of cancer and using that specific evidence to infer something about cancer cases in general. Although it's true that the premise of the argument uses the language "a particular case of cancer," the argument's speaker only uses that language to make a general observation that applies to any particular cancer case (that we never know what caused any particular case). What answer choice C describes is something more specific: evidence "drawn from" a specific case of cancer. If the author had looked at one individual's cancer case and taken evidence from that case to apply to a more general scenario, then answer choice C would be correct. Since the author did not actually use evidence from an individual case of cancer, this answer choice cannot be correct.

Answer choice (D): Ignoring alternate causes is only a problem where an argument makes a positive assertion that one specific thing was in fact the cause of an effect. Here, the author does not conclude that lax standards were the cause of higher rates of cancer near nuclear reactors (if the author had done that, then alternate causes would be a problem for the argument). Rather, the author concludes that we cannot know whether lax standards were such a cause. So answer choice D does not refer to something that makes the argument vulnerable to criticism.

Answer choice (E): Answer choice E describes one form of evidence error--concluding that someone's claim is false, because they have not presented evidence supporting that claim. That description is not accurate here, because the author does not make a conclusion that a claim is false. Rather than concluding a claim is false, the author concludes that it would be impossible for real evidence of a causal claim to exist. Thus, answer choice E inaccurately describes the argument and is incorrect.

[moshei24]

In this question, is the answer A because just because you can't directly connect a cause to an occurrence of cancer doesn't mean that you can't have convincing statistical evidence that something contributed to an increase in cancer in general?

I got this question right, and I have pretty good grasp on it, but I feel like the explanation I just wrote isn't completely clear. Is it? Or would you be able to clarify it a little bit please?

Thanks!

-Moshe

[Adam Tyson]

Correct - I think your explanation is a good one. Another way to put it is that the author presumes, without justification, that an inability to connect a particular case of cancer to a particular cause means that it is impossible to show any kind of evidence that a particular phenomenon may have a causal relationship with cancers generally. Answer A suggests that there is some kind of evidence that could be presented - statistical evidence - and that it is therefore wrong to conclude that it is impossible for there to be any evidence.

Adam

[moshei24]

Thank you!

[SherryZ]

Hi, thank you for your patience and help!

Oct 1999 LSAT, Sec 1, LR Q17:

I chose E but the correct answer is A. Could you explain why A is correct but E is wrong?

Thank you again!

---Sherry

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Sherry,

Let's start with (E) first. Take a close look at the language here--just because they mention causality does not mean this is correct (especially since other answers also mention causality). First, does the author conclude that a "claim about a causal connection is false?" No, he or she concludes that it can't be proven, not that it is false. Second, is this done "on the basis of a lack of evidence for the claim?" No, it's not that there is a lack of evidence, it's that the author says there are too many possible causes to conclude that there is real evidence.

Ok, now back to answer choice (A). In the argument, the author uses the premise that there are many different possible causes to then conclude that "It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards...actually contributed to the increase." Note the careful wording there: it isn't that lax radiation standards aren't the case, but rather that we can't have "real evidence" that they even contributed. Uh oh, that's really specific, and problematic. What (A) then says is that well, although there are many possible causes present, you can indeed get real evidence about whether something played a role. This is entirely reasonable, and would weaken the author's position, and thus answer choice (A) is correct.

Note again that, as I mentioned in my last answer to you, isolating the exact wording of the conclusion (and of the answer choices) makes a big difference in determining which answer choice is correct.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[SherryZ]

Hi Dave,

Thank you very much for your reply!

I chose E because I thought that since the author said there are other causes (toxins, smoking, etc.) might contribute to the increase in cancer rates, it is lack of real evidence that it is lax radiation which contributed to the increase in cancer rates. Therefore, I chose E which includes "on the basis of lack of evidence for the claim".

Could you tell me where is wrong about my logic?? Thank you very much!!

--Sherry

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Sherry,

I think you may have missed my comment on (E) in the post above. So, first take a look at that again because it explains why each part of what (E) says is incorrect. Second, keep in mind that you have to stick to what (E) says, not what you were thinking, meaning that if you think a lack of evidence plays a role you can't automatically choose an answer that states that unless the rest of it is correct as well. That is a trick they use to lure people in, and in this case what they say doesn't match the argument. Last, you state that "it is lack of real evidence that it is lax radiation which contributed to the increase in cancer rates." I think you may be getting the argument twisted up a bit; "It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards that were once in effect at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates" is the conclusion, and the reason the author claims that is because there so many possible causes. Thus, one of several different reasons (E) is wrong is that it discusses "lack of evidence" as a premise idea, not a conclusion idea.

The advice I'd give you here is to read very closely, because while (E) reflects some of the ideas in the stimulus, it doesn't reflect them correctly or in the right relationship. That means that while (E) sounds attractive initially, after a closer examination it falls apart. The details make all the difference.

Thanks!

[kristinaroz93]

My this is a confusing simulus. So what I think is that the author is saying that because we cannot figure out which particualr thing causes cancer individually (i.e smoking, poor diet etc), that we cannot find a corelation between the lax standards at the nuclear reactors and an increase in cancer rates at such sites (which would be the evidence). But of course you can always find correlation since it is an observable phenomenon, and is irrelevant of what we know or do not know regarding indivual causes. Is this correct?

[David Boyle]

My this is a confusing simulus. So what I think is that the author is saying that because we cannot figure out which particualr thing causes cancer individually (i.e smoking, poor diet etc), that we cannot find a corelation between the lax standards at the nuclear reactors and an increase in cancer rates at such sites (which would be the evidence). But of course you can always find correlation since it is an observable phenomenon, and is irrelevant of what we know or do not know regarding indivual causes. Is this correct?

Hello kristinaroz93,

Indeed, stimuli can be confusing!!
--As Dave noted above, careful reading is important. It says, "particular case", not "particular cause". So the author seems to be saying that for any one person with cancer, you don't necessarily know what caused it. However, in the aggregate, some things may cause cancer more than others, statistically speaking.
Correlation may not be irrelevant, but it may not always equal causation either. And somewhat as you say, correlation may not mean much for individual cases.

Hope this helps,
David