LSAT 132 – Section 4 – Question 19

LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 19

December 2010

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:26

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT132 S4 Q19
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
18%
160
B
63%
166
C
3%
154
D
5%
155
E
11%
159
146
157
168
 +Harder 146.238 +SubsectionMedium

Doctor: Medical researchers recently examined a large group of individuals who said that they had never experienced serious back pain. Half of the members of the group turned out to have bulging or slipped disks in their spines, conditions often blamed for serious back pain. Since these individuals with bulging or slipped disks evidently felt no pain from them, these conditions could not lead to serious back pain in people who do experience such pain.

Summarize Argument
The doctor concludes that bulging or slipped disks, which are often claimed as the causes of serious back pain, could not cause serious back pain. This is based on the observation that a significant number of individuals have bulging or slipped disks, but have never experienced serious back pain.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Because many people have bulging or slipped discs without serious back pain, the doctor concludes that these conditions cannot cause serious back pain. But just because these conditions don’t always cause serious back pain on their own, that doesn’t mean they can’t be among the causative factors of serious back pain.

A
A factor that need not be present in order for a certain effect to arise may nonetheless be sufficient to produce that effect.
The doctor isn’t making any claims about some factor that is sufficient, but not necessary, for an effect. Rather, the argument claims that slipped or bulging disks are not sufficient to cause serious back pain.
B
A factor that is not in itself sufficient to produce a certain effect may nonetheless be partly responsible for that effect in some instances.
The doctor concludes that, since bulging or slipped disks are not sufficient to produce serious back pain, they never cause serious back pain. This ignores that they could still be partly responsible for some instances of serious back pain, and thus still “causes.”
C
An effect that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomenon might not occur when that phenomenon is present.
The doctor doesn’t make any claims about an effect that occurs in the absence of some phenomenon. Rather, the doctor discusses how the phenomenon of a slipped or bulging disk is not always followed by the effect of back pain.
D
A characteristic found in half of a given sample of the population might not occur in half of the entire population.
The doctor’s argument doesn’t rely on applying sample data to the entire population. The fact that half the sample is observed to have slipped or bulging disks without serious back pain is enough to say that these conditions aren’t always sufficient to cause serious back pain.
E
A factor that does not bring about a certain effect may nonetheless be more likely to be present when the effect occurs than when the effect does not occur.
How likely bulging or slipped disks (the factor) are to accompany serious back pain (the effect) isn’t relevant to the argument. The doctor isn’t concerned with how often these two things co-occur, but with their causal relationship.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 132 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply