PT138 · S2 · Q24 Studies have found that human tears

If an answer choice is structured like overlooks the possibility that if X is true, Y might not be true then X should match the evidence and Y should match the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "crying as a tendency to reduce emotional stress"? No that was the conclusion. Any time on LSAT that we see "If [conclusion] ... ", it will be wrong. This answer is objecting to an argument that sounds like: Studies have found that crying has a tendency to reduce emotional stress. Since tears have hormone X in them, it must be that shedding hormone X reduces emotional stress.

This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an author presents a Conditional Logic rule and then incorrectly applies it by interpreting it in a backwards or opposite fashion. Did this argument have "a condition required for the production of a given phenomenon"? Nope. We know that "emotional stress" is a condition that is accompanied by the production of a given phenomenon "hormone X", but there's no necessary condition in this argument.

If an answer choice is structured like overlooks the possibility that even if X is true, Y may be true as well then X should match the evidence and Y should match the anti-conclusion. Did the evidence say that "one phenomenon causally contributes to a second phenomenon"? The first premise does not -- it just says that certain hormones are produced in times of emotional stress. That's not clearly labeling emotional stress as the cause. But let's play along and say that "emotional stress is a phenomenon that causally contributes to these hormones". The second half of this answer should sound like the opposite of the conclusion. f.e. Bill is a lawyer. Thus, he must be rich A) fails to address the possibility that, even if someone is a lawyer, they may not be rich. The second half of this answer is saying "Oh, author --- it might be that the hormones causally contribute to emotional stress!" Is that an objection? No, that's exactly what the author believes in her conclusion! So she doesn't fail to consider this. She's actually assuming this possibility.

Are there two distinct factors that are jointly responsible for causing a given phenomenon? Not really. Stress + tears = crying? Stress + hormones = tears? Crying + hormone-shedding = less stress? We'd be forcing it to make something like that work. The author seems to think that, tears produce hormones and emotional stress produces hormones but those aren't jointly responsible. They're each responsible. They don't have to occur at the same time to produce those hormones (technically we don't even know if emotional stress is responsible for these hormones or if they just occur at the same time).