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

[kristinaroz93]

Hi David,

Thanks for responding! I must admit to still being quite confused with this problem no matter how hard I try to convince myself I understand it (something isn't clicking for me still). Would it be okay to do a through breakdown of the problem and of the corresponding answer choice? (i.e. discussing the individual cases of cancer vs. the statistics of an event and how the two are independent of each other.

[Laura Carrier]

Hi kristinaroz93,

I agree that this can be a challenging stimulus! I am not sure quite what is confusing you, but I suspect that it may actually be more straightforward than you are expecting it to be. Any stimulus can be simplified by focusing on the relationship between premises and conclusion, and where they come apart:

The author concludes that it is impossible for there to be any real evidence that the lax radiation standards at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates nearby.

Why? Because it’s not possible to parse out the multiple potential cancer causes and attribute any particular case of cancer specifically to radiation (or to any one of the other possible causes).

Since the flaw exhibited here is not a common one, it may be helpful in thinking about how to characterize it to begin by questioning how completely the premise supports the conclusion, and whether it forces it to be true or whether it leaves room for an exception to the conclusion. Here, the single premise tells us that we can’t say what caused any particular case of cancer. On this basis, the author draws the very strong (and therefore quite difficult to prove) conclusion that it is impossible for there to be any evidence that radiation standards at the reactors played a part in the increase in cancer rates. Do we really know that the unavailability of a causal explanation on a case-by-case basis precludes the possibility of finding evidence that a particular cause might have contributed to the rise in likelihood among nearby residents of developing cancer?

As you pointed out, the lack of certainty as to which of multiple causes led to any particular case of cancer does not automatically mean that there can’t be any evidence that the lax radiation standards had an impact on the overall rate of cancer cases in the area. If I don’t know that radiation caused any specific case, this does not rule out even the mere possibility (which is what the conclusion asserts) of evidence that the radiation increased the likelihood of cases of cancer occurring (e.g., that higher radiation contributed in some way to higher cancer rates). Not knowing the specific causal roots of any particular instance of the phenomenon does not ensure that there can be no evidence suggesting that one possible cause contributed to the greater frequency of the phenomenon in general.

As you said, statistical evidence of the correlation the author seems to be acknowledging between more radiation (due to the lax standards) and more cases of cancer, on average, might count as evidence that radiation had something to do with the increased cancer rate—and the possibility of this kind of evidence that the radiation was a causal factor in the rise in cancer rates does not depend on knowing what caused any particular instance of cancer, which is what is captured by answer choice (A).

I don't know whether this alleviates your confusion—but I hope it clarifies things a bit.
Laura

[Sherry001]

Hello !
I got this question wrong and spent an incredible amount of time on it . I just re- did it again and wanted to see if my reasoning is correct. I had trouble eliminating C and E.

1- because whose to say if a particular case of cancer is due to radiation or some other factors.

Conclusion : 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.

My pre-phrase : I thought the flaw is lack of evidence to indicate something doesn't exists + because something has many causes we can't know an effect ? ( I'm still suffering)

A) correct : because yes even if we don't know all the individual causes doesn't mean we don't know or can't know the effect .

B) opposite of the argument says .

C) the only reason I avoided this one was because this choice has the structure of the argument backwards. But still hesitant as to why this is wrong. I see the particular case being the nuclear reactor site!

D) doesn't do this.

E) doesn't conclude that it's false, just that it's impossible.


Thank you so much
Sherry

[Lucas Moreau]

Hi, Sherry,

You are correct with your analysis of answer choice A. Whether or not we know the individual causes of individual cases doesn't mean we can't look at statistical evidence - like if disproportionately many people in a given high-radiation area develop cancer - to analyze broader trends.

Answer choice C is, as you say, backwards. There is no individual particular case of cancer that the stimulus refers to or draws evidence from. It suggests a hypothetical particular case but not an actual one.

Answer choice E, you've got it again. The argument in the stimulus doesn't state that there is no causal connection, but merely that available evidence makes it impossible to prove one.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[kristinaroz93]

Hi Laura,

Thank you for your explanation, as it was really helpful and insightful. I have a few more questions about this problem because of how challenging it was overall. Now moving onto the answer choices, I had a hard time decoding choices B and C.

First lets start with B. What is being referenced when it says "what follows a certain phenomenon" and then what is being refereced when it mentions "the actual phenomenon" itself? Is what follows the phenomenon the CANCER and the actual phenomenon itslef being the lax radiation standards? (I am seriously confused here as to what each term in the choice alludes to exactly). And what hints are given to figure this out?

And for choice C, is it actually the opposite here? The argument inappropriately draws a conclusion about a particular case of cancer (the radiation and how no evidence can be found to show that it has increased the occurnce of cancer by the nuclear site) drawn from the different causes of cancer in general (and how they can never be individually shown to be the cause of any particualr case of cancer). Or is there some other interpretation here?

The wording of these choices threw me off. Would anyone care to clarify these choices=)?

Thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

Kristina,

Because those two answer choices are incorrect, we shouldn't always expect to find references for all the terms in them. Answer choice (B) claims the author presupposed that when one event followed the other, the latter was the cause of the former. Since the argument is, in very loose terms, about whether one can identify a cause of cancer, for the author to have made the mistake in answer choice (B), the author would have had to have claimed that cancer was caused by some event that occurred before it. The author does no such thing.

Just read the first part of answer choice (C): "The argument inappropriately draws a conclusion about causes of cancer in general..." Does the author do that? No. The conclusion is about a particular case, not about the causes in general. So this cannot be the answer.

Remember that Flaw in the Reasoning is in the 1st Logical Reasoning family, so no new information can be in the correct answer choice. Answer choices that say something that does not correctly describe what the author actually did in the stimulus are wrong.

Robert Carroll

[kristinaroz93]

Robert,

Thank you for your response!

B is still confusing to me, isn't it that the former was the cause of the latter (I do not fully understand your explanation of it unfortunately). This is how I interpret B: The argument innpropriately presupposes that what follows radiation (cancer) is caused by radiation, because radiation is the phenomenon we are referring to. But the problem is that the whole argument saying that there is now way to even show a correlation between radiation and cancer, nevertheless claim radiation as the cause. Essenitally I am still confused by B and if the way I view the choice is right, please let me know if my explanation of it is correct !

I understand your explanation of C=) However, was my way of looking at it/ discussion correct as well?

[Robert Carroll]

Kristina,

My "former" and "latter" were referring to the order I mentioned them in the phrase before, "when one event followed the other." "One event" follows the other, so of course it's the second event to occur in time. If you're confused, it's likely due just to the grammatical presentation not matching the temporal order in that statement.

Your interpretation is fine, but realize that it's adding to the stimulus. That is really the reason it's a wrong answer. The answer doesn't make clear what follows what...and it can't, because the author never made a claim that "because A follows B, B causes A." If the author had done this, it would probably have gone as you said, and we know this did not occur in the actual stimulus, so it's new information and thus wrong.

Because the conclusion is about the specific case, I don't think answer choice (C) is an opposite answer, but the categorization of a wrong answer is vastly less important than identifying that it is wrong, which you did.

Robert Carroll

[caseyelizabeth]

Can someone explain why C is wrong? I thought this could be a parts to whole situation.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi casey,

Check out the complete question explanation that I have posted to the top of this thread (https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewt ... 614&t=2205), and let us know if this resolves your question!

Thanks!