#8 - Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (E)

This is a great separator question, and approximately one student in three answers this question correctly. However, some students are able to annihilate this question because they see a reference in the first line that raises an important issue that goes unanswered. That reference is to lobsters “eaten by humans.” The argument asserts that diverting the sewage in the harbor is a moot point because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by the diseases caused by the sewage. This may be, but what about the humans who eat the lobsters that live in the sewage-contaminated environment? The author fails to address this point.

The conclusion of the argument is near the end: “the proposal is pointless,” and this is based on the premise that “hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.”

Answer choice (A): The argument is based on the sewage contamination of the harbor. Although other contaminants may be present, they are not addressed by the argument, and thus this answer does not undermine the author’s position.

Answer choice (B): This answer has no impact because the argument is about lobsters that are caught in the harbor. So, while lobsters in the open ocean may live longer, the author’s point about lobsters in the harbor not living long enough to contract a gill disease is untouched.

Answer choice (C): The issue is not breeding frequency but longevity. So, while we are pleased to hear that lobsters in sewage-contaminated waters breed frequently, this fact does not impact an argument based on the age and disease contraction.

Answer choice (D): Although whether the lobsters contract a gill disease is a critical issue in the argument, the method of determining whether a lobster has a disease is not a critical issue. Again, keep in mind the heart of the argument:

• Premise: “hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.”
  
  Conclusion: “the proposal [to reroute harbor sewage] is pointless.”

Nothing in that argument concerns the detection of the gill diseases.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the author fails to address the effect of the contaminated lobsters on humans who consume them, and this answer attacks that hole. If humans become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases, and gill diseases are more likely to arise when the lobsters live in the sewage-contaminated waters, then the conclusion that the proposal is pointless is incorrect.

[lsatnoobie]

I ruled out answer choice E for the following reason:

The argument is that the proposal is pointless because hardly any lobsters live long enough TO BE HARMED by those diseases. If they are not harmed by the diseases, then the lobsters do not contract full diseases since they're dead before they're infected. Thus humans wouldn't be ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases because these lobsters are not "harmed". Clearly I have a flaw in my thought process somewhere... I'm hoping you could point out where?

I chhose C even though I knew it was wrong (ha) because I thought although the lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed, their offsprings will be contaminated and humans eat baby lobsters too.

Thank you for your help!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi lsat,

This is one of my favorite questions of the LSAT and it is one that can throw students for loop when they first encounter it. The author's specific, nuanced language is the most problematic for readers because they often do not see the bold claim of "pointless" with the author's premise that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed. Let's consider what the author is saying in the first line too. We are concerned about these lobsters because people are eating them. Nobody wants to eat a diseased lobster, after all. But the lobsters, we are told, are being exposed to sewage which gives them gill disease.

Personalize this argument. Do you want to eat a diseased lobster that's been harvested from a sewage-ridden harbor? Do you want to risk eating a lobster that has a disease, even though that disease has not started to harm the lobster? Most people do not because they don't want to eat any type of seafood that has a disease, regardless of whether that disease has begun to harm the host. And so therefore, the author's argument that the proposal is completely "pointless" is a very weak argument.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helped!

[Adeline]

Hi!

I am still confused about why E is correct. The premise in the last sentence that supports the conclusion states that hardly any lobsters live long enough to contract the disease. Doesn't that mean that the lobsters will not be harmed by the disease even if the sewage is located in the harbor? so there will be no concern about human eating lobsters with the gill disease?

Could you help me with this? Thank you so much!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Adeline!

The last sentence says that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by the disease, not that they won't live long enough to contract it. Even though you might have contracted a disease, it may take awhile before it starts to effect you. For example, the flu virus usually has an incubation of a couple of days--meaning you don't actually start feeling sick until 2 days AFTER you first contracted the disease. So the lobsters could contract the gill diseases but not live long enough to actually feel the harmful effects of the gill diseases because first they are killed and eaten by humans--who, according to answer choice (E), often become ill after eating lobsters that had contracted gill disease.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Adeline]

Hi Kelsey,
I understand it now! Thank you very much for your explanation.

[Katya W]

Hi Adeline!

The last sentence says that hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by the disease, not that they won't live long enough to contract it. Even though you might have contracted a disease, it may take awhile before it starts to effect you. For example, the flu virus usually has an incubation of a couple of days--meaning you don't actually start feeling sick until 2 days AFTER you first contracted the disease. So the lobsters could contract the gill diseases but not live long enough to actually feel the harmful effects of the gill diseases because first they are killed and eaten by humans--who, according to answer choice (E), often become ill after eating lobsters that had contracted gill disease.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

Hi Kelsey,

First, I have to say this is kind of an ironic topic since we are currently in the midst of a flu pandemic and having to understand incubation periods and such, haha.

But nonetheless, I’m going to have to say that I’m sorry, but I am still struggling with understanding both your method of reasoning as well as Nicholas’. Your reasoning calls for someone to have a scientific understanding of the difference between “contracting” a disease and being “harmed” by it. For someone who isn’t an expert on incubation periods of diseases or flus, “harmed” by a disease and contracting a disease are one and the same. So, along with those before me, I also did not choose E and wrote it off as an incorrect answer because to my not-expert-on-diseases self, the author was saying the lobsters won’t contract the disease because they won’t live long enough anyway.

I know there’s really no point in continuing to argue this point along with everyone else before me, because it is what it is and obviously no one can change how the LSAT makers wrote this question, and which answer they deemed to be correct. But I just had to at least say my peace about deducing the correct answer choice by understanding the difference between being harmed by a disease and contracting it.

I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.

Thank you!

Katya

[Adam Tyson]

I get where you are coming from, Katya, but I think you are making this question harder than it needs to be. It's crucial to understand why the right answer is right, as well as why the wrong answers are wrong, if you want to make big gains on the test. So instead of looking for a reason to dislike this question and the correct answer, you have to strive for a reason to like it.

Here's my take on this one, simplifying it in the extreme:

Premise: While it could make them sick, lobsters are mostly fine with the sewage

Conclusion: There is NO POINT to getting rid of the sewage

Now, to weaken this argument, we want just one thing that gives the proposal to move the sewage a point. If we find an answer that gives any value at all to the proposal, then we have a good answer. The premise did not say that NO lobsters get sick, just that "hardly any" do. So some could.

Answer E gives us a reason to move the sewage: as long as it is around, some people might get sick as a result. If even one lobster does get gill disease, and a human eats that lobster, they might get sick. Now, suddenly, the proposal has at least some point: protecting humans.

Forget about the difference between "harm" and "contracting" the disease. Forget about epidemiology. From a pure numbers perspective, answer E tells us that some people might get sick if we don't move the sewage. However weak it may be, that answer does give the proposal at least some point, and none of the other answers do anything at all to help the proposal (and some hurt the proposal and thus support the conclusion).

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Katya! You don't have to love answer E, but you DO have to get to a point where you can clearly see that it is superior to all the others. Keep at it, don't let this one beat you!

[Katya W]

I get where you are coming from, Katya, but I think you are making this question harder than it needs to be. It's crucial to understand why the right answer is right, as well as why the wrong answers are wrong, if you want to make big gains on the test. So instead of looking for a reason to dislike this question and the correct answer, you have to strive for a reason to like it.

Here's my take on this one, simplifying it in the extreme:

Premise: While it could make them sick, lobsters are mostly fine with the sewage

Conclusion: There is NO POINT to getting rid of the sewage

Now, to weaken this argument, we want just one thing that gives the proposal to move the sewage a point. If we find an answer that gives any value at all to the proposal, then we have a good answer. The premise did not say that NO lobsters get sick, just that "hardly any" do. So some could.

Answer E gives us a reason to move the sewage: as long as it is around, some people might get sick as a result. If even one lobster does get gill disease, and a human east that lobster, they might get sick. Now, suddenly, the proposal has at least some point: protecting humans.

Forget about the difference between "harm" and "contracting" the disease. Forget about epidemiology. From a pure numbers perspective, answer E tells us that some people might get sick if we don't move the sewage. However weak it may be, that answer does give the proposal at least some point, and none of the other answers do anything at all to help the proposal (and some hurt the proposal and thus support the conclusion).

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Katya! You don't have to love answer E, but you DO have to get to a point where you can clearly see that it is superior to all the others. Keep at it, don't let this one beat you!

Thank you Adam! That was probably the best, most heartfelt, and relatable response, and it was exactly what I needed. You seemed to have caught me exactly where I struggle most - perfectionism. Your response helped me take a step back and re-evaluate the question with a completely new perspective and new understanding. Moreover, I had an “aha!” moment because you made me realize that I missed the words that said that -hardly- any lobsters live long enough. I feel like this is the hole I missed that could have helped me come to terms with this question faster. So thank you for taking the time to write out that explanation, and for being perceptive of what I was struggling with. Also, the suggestion to see why I like a question, rather than dislike it, is great advice. I need to focus on doing that.

Also, thank you for the motivation! Hopefully I will beat this kind of question next time!!

[aheartofsunshine]

Hi there,

I can see why answer choice E is correct now, the distinction between harmed and contracted. I still want to have a more solid reason for eliminating answer choice C though.

For C, originally I didn't think the lobsters were getting infected, so C made the most sense to me, given that even if the lobsters were not contracting the disease, their offspring could, therefore getting humans sick.

I see now that is flawed because the lobsters could have contracted the disease but are not being harmed by it yet. Is C incorrect because, since we know that the lobsters are contracting the disease, the mating habits do not matter? Because the lobsters are going to contract the disease no matter what the breeding rate is relative to the unpolluted water?

Thank you