#12 - Researcher: Research has shown that inhaling the scent

[cecilia]

Just to clarify, would negating (C) yield this:
1) "There's one person who uses uses lavender to reduce stress and who is MORE susceptible on average to getting sick."

or this:

2) At least some ...are not: All

"Everyone who uses the scent of lavender to cut back on stress IS more susceptible to illness than the average."


Could someone verify if either of the above is correct? Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Cecilia, glad to help!

I like your second negation of C better than the first. The negation of "some don't" would be "none don't", which is a lot easier to deal with if we get rid of the double negative and just say "all do". All of the people who inhale lavender have the potential to be sicker than average. That negation would actually help strengthen the argument that inhaling lavender could reduce their illness, since at least the inhalers would HAVE illness to reduce. Since the negation helps, rather than hurts, it's the wrong answer.

Nice work on that negation! Sometimes they can be pretty tricky to parse through, but as long as you focus on making the answer false, with a holistic rather than mechanical approach, you will continue to do well. Keep that up.

[cecilia]

Thanks Adam, that clears things up!

[lsatgirl2017]

Hi Powerscore staff,

I was wondering if someone could explain why E is wrong - I found it to be quite similar to B. I chose C originally, but still was debating between these three options when I went back to review this question. C lured me because it seemed like a Defender Assumption in that those inhaling lavender wouldn't ordinarily be more susceptible to illness (and therefore wouldn't need to be stressed).

Thank you in advance!

[AthenaDalton]

Thanks for your question!

Answer choice (B) links key parts of the argument together -- that (1) inhaling lavender scents decreases stress that (2) people who experience intense stress are more likely to fall ill and that (3) people who inhale lavender will be less likely to get sick. For this to work, we need to know that at least some of the folks inhaling lavender lead high-stress lives and will benefit from reducing their stress levels. If the only people who take the time to inhale lavender scents are part-time yoga teachers who lead blissful, stress-free lives, then we wouldn't see any decrease in illness rates from the use of lavender among this hypothetical population of yoga teachers. At least some of the lavender users must experience "intense stress levels"

Answer choice (E), by contrast, doesn't link the elements of the argument together in this way. It really just restates the second premise (that reducing stress in individuals experiencing intense stress will produce health benefits). For assumption questions we're looking for an unstated, new element that completes the argument. Answer choice (E) doesn't add anything new or link together disparate elements, so it's not the correct choice.

I hope this makes sense! Good luck!

[chian9010]

Could anyone give a detailed explanation why B is correct? I skipped this question because I really had no clue about it

Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

It's causal, chian9010 - the author is claiming that since inhaling lavender causes a reduction in stress, and intense stress causes illness, that inhaling lavender must cause a reduction in illness. The author must be assuming that the folks inhaling lavender have that intense level of stress that might otherwise lead to illness. In other words, he is assuming that the cause of some illness (intense stress) is present in some of those people who are inhaling lavender, in order to get the effect of reducing illness.

What if that cause is not present? If those folks inhaling lavender are not under intense stress, then inhaling lavender will not necessarily remove a cause of illness. It reduces stress, sure, but not intense stress, so the cause of the illness isn't removed and thus we should not expect the effect to be removed. Where the cause is absent, the effect should be absent. That negation of answer B wrecks the causal claim, and thus proves that B must be an assumption made by this author.

The Assumption Negation Technique is like a magic bullet for assumption questions, so use it whenever you have any doubt about the correct answer. The correct answer, when negated, will destroy the argument. Give that a try!

[nihals23]

Hi. I had great diffuculty with this problem.Firstly,why cant D be the correct answer? It seems like a proper assumption. Also, could you please negate option B, I cant see how it weakens the argument. Thanks!

[Marina7]

Hello!

I picked D for this question and I’m not entirely sure why that’s incorrect. I’m also hoping you can help me understand the difference between B and E? I understand them to be saying very similar things.

Thank you!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Nihals 23 & Marina,
The negation of B would be: No people who regularly inhale the scent of lavender would otherwise be under enough stress to impair their immune systems.

Adam's response explains why this is incorrect: "...the author is claiming that since inhaling lavender causes a reduction in stress, and intense stress causes illness, that inhaling lavender must cause a reduction in illness. The author must be assuming that the folks inhaling lavender have that intense level of stress that might otherwise lead to illness. In other words, he is assuming that the cause of some illness (intense stress) is present in some of those people who are inhaling lavender, in order to get the effect of reducing illness.

What if that cause is not present? If those folks inhaling lavender are not under intense stress, then inhaling lavender will not necessarily remove a cause of illness. It reduces stress, sure, but not intense stress, so the cause of the illness isn't removed and thus we should not expect the effect to be removed. Where the cause is absent, the effect should be absent. That negation of answer B wrecks the causal claim, and thus proves that B must be an assumption made by this author."

If Answer E were negated it wouldn't necessarily harm the argument, because even if reduced stress didn't always diminish susceptibility to illness for people who are under enough stress to impair their immune systems to at least some degree, those people (who are under enough stress) would not necessarily be the folks who were inhaling lavender so it wouldn't automatically overlap and be relevant to the argument.

If Answer D were negated it wouldn't necessarily harm the argument, because even inhaling lavender didn't primarily reduce stress and thereby reduce illness it could still be the case that in some people, inhaling lavender reduced stress to enough of a degree that it also reduced illness. So inducing lavender doesn't need to primarily reduce stress to reduce illness,And that would still be in line with the reasoning in the argument.

Hope that helps!
-Malila