Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S3 · Q21 Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one's sense of smell.

Conclusion

Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damage's one's sense of smell.

why should we believe that?

Evidence

In a study, they asked 100 workers from a sulfur factory and 100 workers from other occupations to identify a variety of chemically reproduced scents.

On average, the factory workers only identified 10% of the scents correctly, whereas the control group had a 50% accuracy rate.

Evaluate

Since the argument is interpreting the results of a study, we can use our Curious Fact / Explanation mindset.

Curious Fact ... why are the workers from the sulfur factory scoring so much worse on this smell test than the workers from other occupations? Author's Explanation ... the prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes has permanently damaged the sulfur workers' sense of smell (making them unable to detect as many smells in the smell test).

We always evaluate these arguments two different ways: 1. Are there any Alternative Explanations for the Curious Fact? 2. How plausible is the Author's Explanation?

As a (silly) example of #1, maybe the sulfur factory workers are bunch of tough guys/gals who don't want to admit to some fancy smell-test scientist that they know the scent of lavender, so they fudge an incorrect response to save their image.

As a (legit) example of #2, have the 100 workers from the sulfur factory actually been working there long enough to have the "prolonged" exposure that the author thinks is the causal factor here?

Goal

Since this is EXCEPT we might see a variety of ways to weaken the argument, but each one will do one of two things: - give us an Alternate Explanation for why the sulfur workers are scoring lower on the smell test than the other occupational workers are.

or

- undermine the plausibility of the Author's Explanation that prolonged exposure to sulfur has damaged their sense of smell and made it hard for them to do well on a smell test.

21.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument except:

  1. Correct

    The chemicals used in the

    Why this is right

    This answer is so weak that it could almost never be a real answer on Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. It's saying that the smells in the smell test were close to the real thing, but not perfect. So what? We're not demanding perfection. That would be an unrealistic demand. We wouldn't be able to say, "The real reason the sulfur workers are scoring only 10% accuracy is that the scents are not perfect replicas of their intended source". If the imperfect fakeness were a problem, it would also impact the 100 workers from the control group the same way. Since this answer doesn't identify anything that would be different about the two groups in the experiment, it can't offer an alternate explanation for the observed difference between the two groups.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    45% picked this

  2. The subjects in the study

    Alternative Explanation

    This allows us to argue that, "the sulfur workers didn't do worse because their noses have been permanently damaged by sulfur fumes. They did worse because the smell-test was administered in a sulfur factory. Good luck smelling lavender or vanilla in a smell-test when each scent in the test somehow has to drown out the stinky sulfur-filled air. Meanwhile, the 100 people in the control group are probably smelling these smells in the sterile air of an office."

    21% picked this

  3. Most members of the control

    Alternative Explanation

    This allows us to say, "the control group didn't do better at the test because their noses hadn't been damaged by sulfur fumes; they did better because they already had prior knowledge of the scents involved in the smell test."

    9% picked this

  4. Every sulfur-emitting factory with workers

    Alternative Explanation

    This allows to argue that "the sulfur workers didn't do worse because their sense of smell had been damaged by sulfur. They did worse because their sense of smell had been damaged by one of the other noxious fumes at their factory." Note that with all these alternative explanations, we are not able to say THIS is the REAL story. We're able to create doubt ... "Maybe THIS is the real story?" To undermine a specific attribution of causality (i.e. to acquit your client of the murder he's charged with), you just need to create some doubt, by showing that there does exist a plausible alternative hypothesis.

    16% picked this

  5. Because of the factories' locations,

    Alternative Explanation

    This allows us to argue, "the sulfur workers didn't do worse because their noses had been permanently damaged by sulfur fumes. They did worse because they live in an area that doesn't have lilacs, and lavender, and sandalwood, and whatever other regionally-biased scents may have been in this test." If one of the scents is a California poppy, and you live in Vermont and have never smelled a California poppy, then you're at a disadvantage when it comes to identifying that scent.

    9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free