#22 - Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence

[kithly]

When looking for an answer choice that will weaken the argument, I look for an alternative explanation to the one provided by the stimulus. The conclusion of the stim is: Office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote worker's health.

I feel like C and E BOTH provide an adequate alternative explanation. C states that people who do regular physical work are encouraged to use techniques that reduce back stress. This would prove that it's not the office equipment and furniture at fault for not promoting worker's health - it's the lack of proper stress-reducing techniques passed along and utilized by the employees.

Meanwhile, E states that it's consistent physical exercise that reduces back stress. So, it's not the office equipment at fault - it's the lack of regular physical exercise at fault.

What's the difference between C and E?

[Brook Miscoski]

Kithly,

When looking to weaken the stimulus, you should attack the conclusion. In this case, the stimulus's conclusion is an explanation, so finding an alternative explanation is a good strategy.

When I read this stimulus, my reaction was that sedentary people are often out of shape. Because (E) is more consistent with my reaction, I would pick (E) instead of (C).

However, not everyone will have the same reaction or the same feeling that they can rely on it to make a choice. So there is a more methodical option for you.

The question stem says "most weakens," so it's conceivable that you will have to eliminate an answer that might weaken the conclusion and chose the choice that is more certain to weaken the conclusion. Indeed, that's what happened to you on this question.

You are absolutely correct that (C) could weaken the stimulus because it suggests that people who do strenuous work are doing something to reduce the stress. However, it's still higher stress work, and notice that the workers are encouraged, not required, to use mitigating techniques, so we don't know that they are using those techniques.

Looking at (E), we're sure that the people doing strenuous work are getting exercise, because that's what strenuous work is. If that's the most effective way to prevent injuries, the difference between physical laborers and desk workers can't be solved by better furniture, since the most effective way is exercise. The desk workers could never catch up by using better furniture, which completely destroys the stimulus.

I agree that this is a hard question. However, by methodically looking for details why one of the choices falls short of a clear attack, you can get it right.

[Pragmatism]

So, I selected C, but upon reviewing it, I realized why C was ultimately wrong and why E was correct. However, I have a question related to the overall question type, which applies to weakening & strengthening questions alike, why target the conclusion of a stimulus when the question stem asks to either strengthen or weaken the argument/reason? The reason/argument is comprised of both premise(s) and conclusion, so why isolate the conclusion and not the entire relationship between the premise and conclusion?

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, Pragmatism! We typically focus on the conclusion because that is what we are ultimately looking to raise doubts about. We can do that by directly attacking it, but you are correct that we can also do it by showing that the premises do not necessarily support it. What we almost never do is directly attack a premise by showing that it is false. In real arguments, we do that all the time, but on the LSAT that's just not a common approach, because it focuses on facts rather than on logical structure, and this test is entirely about your ability to recognize and analyze that structure. The authors don't really care about your grasp of the facts, but only about your ability to identify the underlying reasoning.

The one place where we might see premises being questioned is in a Weaken-Except question, where the four wrong answers will all weaken the argument and the correct response will not. Because we are looking for so many different weaknesses in the argument to eliminate those wrong answers, we sometimes see LSAC straying from the norm and providing answers that raise doubts about the truth of one or more premises.

In this case, I would say we are focusing on the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and not just on the conclusion in isolation. We need an answer that shows why the premises might not support the conclusion, and since it is a causal claim we should probably be looking for an alternate cause, or the cause without the effect, the effect without the cause, a reversed cause and effect, or a problem with any underlying data.

[Vy5]

I appreciate your explanation but wonder how we can draw the connection that consistent exercise and physical labor as a back pain preventative? What if the labor does not get their heart rate up, for example? Or what if they do not experience muscular fatigue because they regularly do it? How can we be sure it is physical exercise?

On the other hand, I believe (C) provides another mechanism by which the back pain may be prevented and although it must be pointed out that encouragement does not mean that the workers are acting on the suggestions made to them this surely seems to be a far smaller leap than would be needed for (E).

What cue gives away the need to give (E) more consideration here. It seems to be neutral and something that might otherwise be eliminated on a first read.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Vy5,

To begin with, we don't need any outside information to trust the answer choices. In weaken questions, we trust the information in the answer choices, because the question stem asks us which one of the following "if true" would weaken the argument. We don't need any support for the statement in the answer choices for these. Other question types, like must be true, require us to pick the answer choice that is provable by using the stimulus. That's not the case for weaken questions, so we don't care that the answer choice isn't supported by the stimulus.

The question becomes, which of answer choice (C) or answer choice (E) would most weaken the relationship in the stimulus between back pain in office workers and office equipment/furniture. This is a causal argument that the equipment is causing the back pain. Anything that provides an alternate cause, shows the cause occurs without the effect, the effect without the cause, or shows a reversal between the cause and effect.

Answer choice (C) says that people who do strenuous physical work are encouraged to use techniques to lessen the effect on their backs. Does that impact a relationship between office workers, office equipment, and back pain? It addresses a way to reduce back pain in other situations, but not in the situation in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E) on the other hand, states that consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways prevent or reduce lower back pain. If this answer choice is true, it weakens our stimulus by suggesting that the cause of the back pain isn't the equipment in the office, it's the fact that the workers cannot spend the consistent time exercising due to their long hours.

Hope that helps,
Rachael

[Vy5]

Hi Vy5,

To begin with, we don't need any outside information to trust the answer choices. In weaken questions, we trust the information in the answer choices, because the question stem asks us which one of the following "if true" would weaken the argument. We don't need any support for the statement in the answer choices for these. Other question types, like must be true, require us to pick the answer choice that is provable by using the stimulus. That's not the case for weaken questions, so we don't care that the answer choice isn't supported by the stimulus.

The question becomes, which of answer choice (C) or answer choice (E) would most weaken the relationship in the stimulus between back pain in office workers and office equipment/furniture. This is a causal argument that the equipment is causing the back pain. Anything that provides an alternate cause, shows the cause occurs without the effect, the effect without the cause, or shows a reversal between the cause and effect.

Answer choice (C) says that people who do strenuous physical work are encouraged to use techniques to lessen the effect on their backs. Does that impact a relationship between office workers, office equipment, and back pain? It addresses a way to reduce back pain in other situations, but not in the situation in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E) on the other hand, states that consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways prevent or reduce lower back pain. If this answer choice is true, it weakens our stimulus by suggesting that the cause of the back pain isn't the equipment in the office, it's the fact that the workers cannot spend the consistent time exercising due to their long hours.

Hope that helps,
Rachael

Does this mean the same thing as an alternative mechanism by which the back pain may be explained? I see what you mean now. Is it enough to state an alternative pathway to the outcome? For this question, I looked for some way to determine that the office workers were less likely to get exercise but the stimulus only mentions they sit a lot at work.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Vy5,

Yes, you're right that what Rachael is describing is an alternative mechanism (i.e. alternate cause) to explain the higher incidence of lower back injuries among office workers. In other words, the office equipment and furniture aren't affirmatively causing the injuries. Rather, the lack of consistent physical exercise makes them more susceptible to injuries (and gives them a longer recovery time when they get injured). To identify that the office workers are not getting the same consistent physical exercise that others are, you can look to the language of the first sentence of the stimulus that says "office workers who spend long hours sitting" have higher incidence of injuries than "people who regularly do physical work." Since the office workers do not fall into the category of people who regularly do physical work, and since they spend long hours sitting, we can make the jump to answer choice E and say it is more likely they are not getting "consistent physical exercise" (at least more likely that they're not getting it than the "people who regularly do physical work").

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[J1445]

I chose AC E and during blind review chose C. How can we assume that physical work is the same as physical exercise? I feel like making that assumption is key in differentiating between C and E. If physical work and physical exercise aren't the same, it wouldn't really matter, making C the better option. Can someone clarify that question and help me understand what are appropriate assumptions to be made? Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi J,

We don't have to assume they are the same thing---we are in a weaken question. So we want to know how it impacts the argument physical exercise is a good way to avoid back injuries. Physical work is a type of physical exercise. Our stimulus draws a comparison---office workers have higher incidence of lower back pain than those who engage in physical labor. The author concludes this must mean that the office workers are using equipment that isn't designed well, assuming that the problem is that office workers are too injured. But the opposite is possible---it could be that the physical laborers are LESS injured than expected. That's what answer choice (E) does---it says that the physical laborers have protection from the injuries that we would have expected to see. Answer choice (E) is an alternate cause that weakens the argument.

Answer choice (C) doesn't really impact the argument. We don't know if the workers do use those techniques, just that they are encouraged to do so. And it doesn't explain why the office workers are relatively more injured than the physical workers.

Hope that helps!