#22 - A recent study revealed that people who follow

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

Here, the author discusses a recent study that revealed that when people follow exactly the standard
recommendations to avoid infection by pathogenic microorganisms in meat-based foods, they are
actually more likely to catch a disease caused by those pathogens than are people who deviate
from the recommendations in some significant way. Based on this correlation, the author concludes
that “the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by these pathogens must be
counterproductive.”

This is a causal argument. By saying the recommendations are counter-productive, the author is
saying that the recommendations cause the occurrence of the diseases that they are intended to avoid.
As with all causal conclusions on the LSAT, this conclusion is flawed. While the evidence shows
that there is a correlation between the strict application of the recommendations and an increased
incidence of certain diseases, it is improper to conclude from this evidence that the recommendations
cause the disease.

The question stem reveals that this is a Flaw question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer
choice will describe the author’s flawed use of causal reasoning.

Answer choice (A): This additional ability of pathogenic microorganisms is irrelevant to the
argument, which had to do only with meat-based foods. Since this information is irrelevant, the
author’s failure to mention it is not a logical flaw.

Answer choice (B): We cannot say that the author failed to consider that “many” people precisely
follow the recommendations, because the stimulus simply says “people.” Further, the number of
people who precisely follow the recommendations addresses the scope of the problem, but does not
address the issue here, which is whether the fault lies with recommendations themselves.

Answer choice (C): The argument did not address the ability to identify all diseases caused by
microorganisms generally, and the author did not err by not addressing this information.

Answer choice (D): The author did consider this possibility and rejected it by concluding that the
recommendations are counter-productive.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, because it indicates that the author has
failed to consider an alternate cause for the higher likelihood of infection among those who strictly
follow the recommended guidelines. They are so cautious because they are more susceptible, and it
may be this innate susceptibility rather than a problem with the guidelines that causes their increased
incidence of disease.

[LustingFor!L]

I am confused by answer choice E. I eliminated E, because I thought the last sentence of the stimulus was taking into account that the recommendations are counterproductive. Can you explain this for me?

Thank you!

[David Boyle]

I am confused by answer choice E. I eliminated E, because I thought the last sentence of the stimulus was taking into account that the recommendations are counterproductive. Can you explain this for me?

Thank you!

Hello,

The stimulus may "tak[e] into account that the recommendations are counterproductive", but what is the reason? Answer E gives one.

David

[JKP2018]

In the stimulus, it says that people who follow the recommendations for pathogenic organisms "in meat-based foods" are more likely to get the diseases from these organisms "period," full-stop. It doesn't specifically say that the people who get the diseases get them through meat-based foods, just that they get it.

It seems that a potential criticism against this argument is, well, you can get these diseases without eating meat. All the preparations in the world against meat (following all the guidelines) won't help if you are ignoring other ways to get these diseases.

This is why I picked A. I don't think the answer is irrelevant, as the first post says, because such 'shell games' have been the reason for many answers being right or wrong, and this was the clue that got me to pick this over E. The real problem, I think, is that A doesn't really hit the conclusions: having these organisms grow in non-meat doesn't mean that the standard recommendations are counterproductive. Or, said another way, answer A gives a reason why people might get sick, but it doesn't say anything about the recommendations being productive or no. It also doesn't explain why people who ignore the meat-based recommendations aren't just as susceptible for non-meat based foods.

Basically, A is really wrong, and I feel dumb for picking it, but I don't the reason it is wrong is different from the first post.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi JKP2018,
Since this is a Flaw question the argument is assumed to be true (even though the reasoning is problematic) and we have to pick out the answer choice that describes the problem with the reasoning in the argument.

It is likely that Answer A was deemed irrelevant in the first explanation because we need the Flaw to relate to strict adherence being counterproductive, since more of those folks are contracting the diseases. Answer A could affect both people who were strictly adhering to the recommendations for meat and those who were not, because it is expanding the problem outside of the realm of meat. Since that does not address a flaw in the argument that would relate to the counterproductive point it can be seen as irrelevant.
Hope that helps!
-Malila