#23 - Researcher: Consumption of turmeric, a basic

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen, CE. The correct answer choice is (E).

The stimulus begins with the conclusion, and then provides support for that view in the following sentences. the argument can be rephrased as follows:

• A team has analyzed information about elderly residents in Singapore. Those who eat curries have higher scores on cognition tests, and that relationship was strongest for those of Indian descent. This information supports a causal conclusion that turmeric slows cognitive decline.

It is important to note how the argument shifts terms from curry to turmeric. Turmeric is a basic ingredient in curry so the relationship makes sense, but you should look for an answer that helps support that the turmeric is more likely the cause (as opposed to some other part of curry).


Answer choice (A): The opinions of the researchers prior to starting the study are irrelevant since we are dealing with what was actually found during the study. Just because they hypothesized they might find the connection doesn't support the truth of the actual connection.

Answer choice (B): Careful here, this could actually hurt the argument. You are attempting to strengthen the relationship in the stimulus, namely that turmeric causes a slower cognitive decline. This answer (if you allow highly educated to roughly parallel higher cognition) seems to suggest that the relationship is somewhat reversed, and those that are more cognitively functional tend to eat more curry.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus addresses "elderly residents of Singapore," but this answer addresses "most Singapore residents," and thus this answer does not allow us to make a further determination on the relationship in the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): Because the entire study was about Singaporeans, the fact that they all share a a tendency to eat more curry in general doesn't affect the study. Inside that data there were still notable differences that support the idea that curry has a positive effect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The last sentence of the stimulus notes that the connection was strongest for those of Indian ethnicity, and this answer plays off that fact by linking those curries to a higher turmeric count. The idea is that those with the highest cognitive functions are also eating the most turmeric, which strengthens the conclusion.

Is this answer perfect? No. The stimulus mentions those of Indian ethnicity, but that doesn't automatically mean those individuals ate Indian curries. We would prefer that the answer say, "The curries eaten by those of Indian ethnicity generally..." but it's clear that the test makers were linking the two here, and in general this would support the relationship regardless of the link not being perfectly specified.

[Loyd_Xmas]

I did not choose answer choice E because I thought it would be racist to assume that people of Indian ethnicity prefer Indian curry. Maybe this does not sound racist at first, but, in my mind during the exam, I equated this assumption to assuming that a Mexican individual eats many tacos.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi cnyberg!

Definitely, as Dave noted above, answer choice (E) is not a perfect answer for the exact reason you stated--just because a person is of a certain ethnicity does not mean that they necessarily eat the same foods associated with that ethnicity. Definitely seems like a case of stereotyping and casual racism on the part of the LSAT!

Thankfully, this issue does not come up very often on the test. But one thing to remember is that the LSAT is not trying to test you to see if you are secretly racist. If you see racism on the test, it is a failing of the test makers and not a trap to find out if you harbor any racist ideas. Hopefully, you will not encounter any other answer choices on the test that seem like they are stereotyping people based on their race/ethnicity/gender/other identities. But, if you do, still try to consider it in the context of the LSAT question you have. You're always trying to find the best answer. If it's making the link you think it needs to make for the argument, then go with it even if you think making that link in the real world would be some sort of stereotyping. And then, after your test, you can consider filing a complaint with LSAC!

Best,
Kelsey

[Katherinthesky]

Hello,

Although I acknowledge that (C) refers to a general group ("Singapore residents who are of Indian ethnicity") rather than the specific sub-group "elderly (Singapore residents of Indian ethnicity)," and also that (C) doesn't directly mention turmeric in the way the conclusion did, I still feel that (C) provides a link that strengthens the conclusion.

I feel that (C)'s mention of regular curry eating indirectly addresses the regular consumption of turmeric, which helps explain why the elderly Singaporeans of Indian descent have the highest scores on the cognitive-function tests, which in turn ultimately addresses the conclusion about slower cognitive decline.

I feel that (E) asks us to assume much more than (C), and therefore eliminated it.

What am I missing here?
Thanks in advance.

[Adam Tyson]

Some things that you might be missing about answer C, Katherinthesky, is that what is true of these residents generally isn't at issue, because the argument is only looking at those sub-groups that eat curries regularly. In other words, we don't care one bit if Singapore residents of Indian descent generally eat curry regularly. All we care about is whether those who DO eat them regularly have higher cognitive function, and if that is because of the turmeric or not.

To illustrate, let's assume for a moment that only 2% of Singapore residents of Indian descent eat curries regularly. Would that hurt the argument? Not at all, because the study would only be looking at that 2%, and would only be drawing conclusions about them! Those people have higher cognitive function than do the other 98% of that group, and higher also than other groups that don't regularly eat curries. So if that group being relatively small doesn't hurt, how can it being relatively large help?

Answer E helps connect the turmeric to the results, without any outside help or assumptions. It suggests that turmeric may indeed be the reason for that group having higher cognitive function.

[Desperatenconfused]

Hello,
I chose B because B is a correlation between cognitive function and curry (which includes turmeric). I know correlations are weak strengthen/weaken answers for causal conclusions, but I’ve had LSAT questions use them for correct answers. In your explanation, you say that it might weaken because it implies the highly educated implies higher cognitive function, which is a reverse causal relationship with the conclusion. However, since it is “are more likely than other residents” wouldn’t it be a correlation? And therefore strengthen?

I see why E would be possibly strongER of an answer, although I initially eliminated it because I didn’t see the relevancy in Indian curries (I am so used to looking for answers that strengthen (directly) the causal relationship that I totally skipped choices that didn’t include cognitive terms.


Could you advise on how to approach these causal questions??

[Luke Haqq]

Hi desperatenconfused!

To start, as the explanation notes above, the conclusion of this stimulus is the first sentence: "Consumption of turmeric, a basic ingredient in curry dishes, probably slows cognitive decline."

So the conclusion is causal and is about the causal impact of turmeric in particular, the effect being that it slows cognitive decline. Note, however, that the remaining sentences of the stimulus don't mention turmeric again. Among other topics, the remaining sentences discuss curries, and we're told at the outset that turmeric is a basic ingredient in curries. The first half of the final sentence ("Those who eat curries regularly had higher scores on cognitive-function tests than those who rarely or never eat curries") already strengthens the conclusion. Answer choice (E) works in tandem with the second half of that sentence ("this relationship was strongest for the elderly Singapore residents of Indian ethnicity") to strengthen it even more. If (E) were true, it indicates that the causal relationship is strongest among a group the curries of which contain more turmeric than others. That is, it strengthens the claim about the turmeric being the cause with the effect of slowed cognitive decline.

I think there is a small leap that might not be warranted in connecting (B) to cognitive function. For example, it's not clear what the connection is between cognitive decline slowing and being highly educated. People might be highly educated but still experience cognitive decline. If (B) had instead said something like "[The group of residents of Singapore experiencing the slowest cognitive decline] are more likely than other residents to eat curries regularly," that would make that answer choice more attractive. That would connect turmeric (via curries) to cognitive decline slowing, strengthening the argument.