#20 - In a recent study of stroke patients, those who

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly right, AM4747! The issue is not what the glutamate does, because that was given to us in the premises. Rather, it's where it came from. We found it in the blood, so it must have leaked from damaged nerve cells. What if instead it was ingested? Maybe it came from external contact? Maybe, as you said, it also is released by healthy nerve cells? The source of the glutamate, rather than the effect it has, is the issue here.

Well done!

[smtq123]

E is better at strengthening than D.
The argument doesn't associate Zero level of Glutamate with healthy nerve cells. In case of nerve damage, Glutamate has highest level. Like any item in blood test, we have normal levels of chemicals present, it is only when the values is outside the ranges then only it indicates some kind of abnormalities. So in the case of normal nerve cells (without any damage), it is very much possible to have lower levels of Glutamate in blood due to some natural reasons.
E strengthens as it rules out the possibility that nerve damage may prevent the release of Glutamate.
Looking for feedback on my analysis.
Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Sorry to break this to you, smtq123, but answer E has absolutely no impact on the argument. It doesn't matter at all whether the nerve cells from which the glutamate leaked were ultimately destroyed or not! So what if they were destroyed? They could still be the source of the leaked glutamate, or the source could still be something else!

As discussed earlier in this thread, the real issue in this argument is whether that glutamate we found in the blood could have gotten there some other way. We know it's there, and we know it can destroy surrounding nerve cells, and we know one possible source is leaking from damaged nerve cells, but what evidence is there that that MUST be the source? Answer D is the only one that helps to eliminate other possible sources, thereby strengthening the claim that it leaked from damaged nerve cells.

[pineapplelover18]

I’m a bit confused in this question, is D right because in the premise it says “if glutamate leaks from these cells, it can kill ” and the conclusion is definite “ glutamate from leaky cells is a cause of brain damage ( from continued deterioration of killed cells). Thus, bc we’re going from a possibility to definitive, to strengthen as D does, we can say that if leaky cells is the only cause of glutamate, then we can move from a can/could— definitive terms. if we don’t say it’s the only cause then we can’t necessarily have the conclusion follow bc it could follow that we have glutamate from another source that causes long term brain damage.

In sum, when I first saw this question, I assumed we would be focusing on “glutamate” thinking we are strengthening the point that glutamate causes the deterioration but it’s the “leaky cells” part we should be focusing on instead; it is the glutamate FROM leaky cells which is the problem and we are strengthening this.

Is this correct? I’m sorry if I’m making no sense I find this question difficult for some reason and want to make sure I understand

[pineapplelover18]

I’m a bit confused in this question, is D right because in the premise it says “if glutamate leaks from these cells, it can kill ” and the conclusion is definite “ glutamate from leaky cells is a cause of brain damage ( from continued deterioration of killed cells). Thus, bc we’re going from a possibility to definitive, to strengthen as D does, we can say that if leaky cells is the only cause of glutamate, then we can move from a can/could— definitive terms. if we don’t say it’s the only cause then we can’t necessarily have the conclusion follow bc it could follow that we have glutamate from another source that causes long term brain damage.

In sum, when I first saw this question, I assumed we would be focusing on “glutamate” thinking we are strengthening the point that glutamate causes the deterioration but it’s the “leaky cells” part we should be focusing on instead; it is the glutamate FROM leaky cells which is the problem and we are strengthening this.

Is this correct? I’m sorry if I’m making no sense I find this question difficult for some reason and want to make sure I understand

Edit: upon working through this question again, I got to the correct answer by going through the AC like so:
- premise tells us glutamate can kill IF it comes from damaged or oxygen starved cells
- conclusion says it is the glutamate from these damaged cells that can cause killing of other cells (i.e continued deterioration)

so obviously there's a gap here, the premise tells us hey, if this is where its coming from, it can kill.[/b] in another example It would be like: if smoking is where your cancer is coming from, it can kill you. We aren't discussing whether cancer can kill you, but whether its the smoking its coming from that can kill you (just like if the glutamate is coming from these cells, we know glutamate can kill, we aren't questioning the truth of that )

following this, the conclusion goes: well the oxygen deprived and damaged cells is definitely a cause of continued deteoriation bc it can expel glutamate (i.e the death of more cells). Again we aren't questioning whether glutamate kills, but IF IT REALLY IS THE OXYGEN DEPRIVED CELLS THATS THE PROBLEM. and when I read it this way I thought, well author what if youre wrong and glutamate kills another way? Going back to my example, it would be like if I concluded smoking was a cause of cancer in x. What if it was the million other things x did on the daily that caused cancer to grow within them? SO, if we conclude as D does, that there's no other way cancer could have gotten in x's body, then we can reasonably conclude that the smoking caused it. In the same fashion, if we know glutamate cant get into the blood via no other way, we can conclude that the leaking cells caused it. Am I somewhat right or losing the strategy here?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi pineapplelover18!

You comment,

if we don’t say it’s the only cause then we can’t necessarily have the conclusion follow bc it could follow that we have glutamate from another source that causes long term brain damage.

Yes, what you describe sounds correct. In reading the stimulus, a possible pre-phrase you might have arrived at was that glutamate could potentially come from other sources. If that were true, it would undermine the conclusion about glutamate leaking from a specific source. Answer choice (D) strengthens the argument's reasoning because it gets rid of that possibility of glutamate coming from another source.