#20 - Scientist: My research indicates that children who

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

The scientist’s conclusion (which happens to follow the words “I conclude”) is that there is a causal connection between the gene variant and thrill-seeking behavior. This is based on the premise that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior tend to have the gene variant.

The scientist’s argument is flawed for many reasons. First, there is no established causal link between the dopamine response (essentially the variant) and impulsive behavior. Second, it is not shown that impulsive behavior would have the same cause as thrill-seeking behavior.


Answer choice (A): The scientist makes the leap from impulsive children to thrill-seeking adults, so, oddly enough, when in this answer impulsive adults are referenced, it is irrelevant to the argument.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, as it weakens the argument with an attack on the data. If it is not possible to distinguish impulsive behavior from other types of behavior, then what sample are we studying? If this uncertainty is in play, then the scientist’s argument really has no basis.

Answer choice (C): There is no claim in the stimulus that the children were engaging in thrill-seeking behavior, so implying that children are misrepresented as thrill-seeking will not weaken the argument.

Answer choice (D): In the stimulus the author alludes to one possible cause of certain tendencies in children and of similar tendencies in adults. The fact that behavioral changes take place in “many” people between childhood and adulthood does not serve to weaken the argument.

Answer choice (E): It does not matter whether thrill-seeking correlates with other behaviors; this choice fails to attack the causal argument.

[8scn]

Hi, why is B a better answer than A? My reasoning is: cause and effect (gene variant increasing sensitivity to dopamine --> thrill seeking). A is an example of effect without the cause.

[Dave Killoran]

Hey 8scn,

Can you give me some more information on the LSAT prep you've done so far? For example, have you taken a course or read our books? I want to get a sense of your understanding of our techniques so I can give you the best possible answer.

Thanks!

[8scn]

Hi Dave

Yes I took the full-length LSAT prep course with Powerscore just this past summer. I did all the homework and I've been doing practice tests since the end of the course. I stopped in October because of midterm exams and applications, but resumed again starting the 2nd week of November. I spent the 1st week reviewing my notes from the course. (I found out after calling the homework hotline that I'm not allowed to use it because I'm not a current Powerscore student, so that is why I'm posting my questions in this forum).

Thanks,
Sarah

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Sarah,

Ok, that helps a lot! I wanted to have an idea of what resources you had reviewed, so I could make sure you would understand any terminology I might use

Let's look at the question you asked about. The scientist’s conclusion (which happens to follow the words “I conclude”) is that there is a causal connection between the gene variant and thrill-seeking behavior. This is based on the premise that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior tend to have the gene variant.

The scientist’s argument is flawed for many reasons. First, there is no established causal link between the dopamine response (essentially the variant) and impulsive behavior. Second, it is not shown that impulsive behavior would have the same cause as thrill-seeking behavior.

Answer choice (A): The scientist makes the leap from impulsive children to thrill-seeking adults, so, oddly enough, when in this answer impulsive adults are referenced, it is irrelevant to the argument.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, as it weakens the argument with an attack on the data. If it is not possible to distinguish impulsive behavior from other types of behavior, then what sample are we studying? If this uncertainty is in play, then the scientist’s argument really has no basis.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[moshei24]

I chose (D). I'm guessing (B) is right because it cast doubt upon the data used in the research?

An assumption made in the argument is that increased sensitivity to dopamine leads to thrill-seeking behavior or behavior like that.

I'm thinking (A) is wrong because it mixes up impulsivity with thrill-seeking behavior. And (D) is wrong because behavior tendencies is too broad to weaken anything. It could be referring to behavior tendencies when it comes to eating. We don't know if it's referring to thrill-seeking behavior.

Am I understanding this question correctly? Can you clarify it a little bit please?

Thanks so much!

[Nikki Siclunov]

The author observes a correlation between impulsive behavior in children and a certain gene variant. Given the similarity between children's impulsive behavior and adult thrill-seeking behavior, she concludes that the gene variant causes thrill-seeking behavior.

The argument has multiple flaws. We can't reliably say that the gene variant causes impulsive behavior in children, let alone argue that it causes a similar behavior in adults. The root of each type of behaviors may be distinctly different despite the apparent similarity between them. Furthermore, a correlation does not prove causation; it merely implies it.

If answer choice (B) is true, it casts doubt on our ability to reliably identify "impulsive behavior." If impulsiveness were difficult to pin down, then the correlation observed would be rendered unreliable. This, in turn, would undermine the causal argument predicated upon it.

(A) is wrong, because adult impulsiveness is outside the scope of the argument: it mixes elements of both types of behaviors described (impulsiveness in children with thrill-seeking behavior in adults). How dopamine relates to either type of behavior is not entirely clear.

(D) is irrelevant, since the argument is not based on the assumption that all thrill-seeking adults were, at some point, impulsive children.

[moshei24]

Thank you.

[emilysnoddon]

I was choosing between answer choices A and B. I was thinking that even if it is impossible to distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior this wouldn't necessarily matter as it relates to the relationship between the gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior. For example, lets say its not impulsive behavior but a different type of behavior that is linked with the gene variant. This other behavior is still correlated with thrill-seeking behavior since the children have this behavior that may be mislabeled as impulsive behavior and they still have the gene variant and therefore the relationship (while still not valid) between the gene variant and the inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior still exists. I understand that this does target the reliability of the data but I thought that since it was targeting a behavior that wasn't mentioned directly in the conclusion, it didn't do as much damage. I chose A, not realizing that the impulsive behavior in adults was outside the scope of the argument. I thought that since they related impulsive kids to thrill-seeking adults they implied that impulsive and thrill seeking were equivalents.

Can you please elaborate on this answer and why my thinking above is incorrect?

Thank you,

Emily

[Adam Tyson]

The language in the stimulus about adult thrill-seeking behavior is, essentially, nothing other than descriptive - it seeks to describe what type of behavior we are talking about in the stimulus. It is not making any kind of link between the impulsive behavior of some children and the thrill-seeking behavior of some adults, just using one to help describe the other.

See the answers above for discussions of why B is correct here - as you said, it attacks the underlying assumptions about the data. As to what's wrong with A, I will add to what my colleagues have already said by pointing out another problem with it, and that is the use of the word "many". How many is many? Are these impulsive adults more likely than non-impulsive adults to have that gene variant or a sensitivity to dopamine? The claim that "many" aren't sensitive doesn't have any impact on the possibility that impulsive adults may be twice as likely to have the variant as non-impulsive adults. Perhaps 20% of non-impulsive adults have that variant while 40% of impulsive adults do have it. That would fit the "twice as likely" math of the argument and still allow for "many" (60% in my hypothetical) to not have it.

Looks like you have the right reason to pick the correct answer here, and perhaps you are trying a bit too much to "help" answer A be better than it is. This is a common problem many LSAT students deal with, the tendency to want to argue with the answers or add outside info to answer choices to try to make them better or worse than they are. The ability to craft a good argument in support of a given position is an important skill as a law student and as an attorney, but that tendency can really get in the way when taking this test. Suppress that urge!

Keep up the good work.