#9 - High blood cholesterol levels are bad for the heart.

[jared.xu]

I feel that both A and D strengthens the argument to the same degree. My interpretation of the stimulus is thus: High cholesterol is bad for the heart. Shellfish belongs in a group of food that contains cholesterol. But unlike others in the group, it is not necessarily bad for the heart. The reason is that saturated fat affects blood cholesterol far more than dietary cholesterol does, and that shellfish is very low in saturated fat.

I think that A strengthens the argument because what is implied in the "but" is that unlike meat, eggs, and poultry, shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart. This of course means that meat and eggs are bad for the heart. Since the level of dietary cholesterol is insignificant for determining blood cholesterol levels as compared to saturated fat, the only way that meat and eggs, unlike shellfish, could be bad for the heart (i.e. could induce high blood cholesterol) is to be high in saturated fat. Please tell me where is a problem in my reasoning. Thank you in advance for replying.

[Adam Tyson]

I think your interpretation of the "But" at the beginning of the second sentence (which is the conclusion of the argument) is not entirely justified. It doesn't imply that meat, etc., must be bad for the heart. All we know about them is that they are high in cholesterol. The "But" just means that shellfish may be high in cholesterol, "but" they are not bad for the heart.

A doesn't strengthen the conclusion that shellfish aren't bad for the heart - it only supports a conclusion that meat and eggs MAY be bad for the heart. We aren't trying to prove that shellfish are different from meat and eggs, only that shellfish aren't bad. D gives us additional support for that conclusion.

Hope that clarifies it for you!

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[grunerlokka]

I see why D is the correct answer, but on what grounds does one eliminate C? Surely C strengthens the argument. Is the problem simply that C strengthens the argument less than D does (so therefore not "most strengthens")?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi grunerlokka!

Answer choice (C) doesn't strengthen the argument. The conclusion of the argument is that shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart. Answer choice (C) tells us that shellfish has less cholesterol per gram than meat, eggs, and poultry. But it still has cholesterol, and high levels of cholesterol are bad for the heart. It may have less cholesterol than other meat, eggs, and poultry. So maybe it isn't as bad for your heart as they are. But it can still be bad for the heart even if it isn't quite as bad as other foods. The conclusion isn't that shellfish is not as bad as other foods, it's not a relative statement. It is simply that shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart. So really any of the answer choices comparing shellfish to meat, eggs, and poultry are irrelevant to the argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Cflores17]

Cause --> Effect
Cholesterol --> Bad for Heart

Since the stimulus says "shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart" I took it as
No Cause No Effect

Since if you dont have high cholestrol it is not bad for the heart.

Please let me know if this is the right way to go about this. Trying to follow the attacking methods given in the book

[Robert Carroll]

Cflores17,

The problem with that is that shellfish definitely contains cholesterol. It says so in the second sentence.

Instead, focus on the real problem - cholesterol in the blood. Cholesterol in food isn't the problem, but in the blood. So if a food, like shellfish, is high in cholesterol but somehow doesn't increase blood cholesterol levels, that helps the argument.

Robert Carroll