Medical researcher: A survey of more

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct55% picked this

   fails to address the possibility that an observed correlation between two phenomena is due to another factor that

   Why this is right

   This is just naming that THIRD FACTOR option we discussed. This answer doesn't insinuate that we should know which thing is this mystery factor. It's just boringly saying, "you can't assume one causal explanation for a correlation when other causal possibilities exist (such as third factor)." As an example, a condition like anemia (low iron in the blood) might fatigue people and cause them to sleep more than 8 hours, but also make them more vulnerable to develop illnesses.

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

   55%
2. B

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match18% picked this

   fails to consider that even if a given factor causally contributes to the occurrence of a given phenomenon, it may not be the only

   Any time an answer is structured like fails to consider that even if X, it may not be Y the X should match the Evidence and the Y should match the conclusion. In the evidence, was there a given factor that causally contributed to the occurrence of a given phenomenon? No, the evidence was a correlation. We can eliminate the answer at this point. In the conclusion, was the author saying that some factor was the only factor affecting the occurrence of a phenomenon? No, the author was only saying that sleep deprivation is a factor that probably protects against illness. He didn't suggest it's the only this that protects against illness. So the Conclusion part of this answer also doesn't match.

   18%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match5% picked this

   concludes, from the claim that a certain phenomenon occurs and the claim that a certain condition is sufficient for that phenomenon to

   Any time an answer is structured like concludes, from the claim that Y, that X the Y should match the Evidence, the X should match the Conclusion Did the evidence say - a certain phenomenon occurs and - a certain condition is sufficient for that phenom to occur No, first of all there weren't two premises. There was only one. So this answer is immediately garbage. Secondly, "a sufficient condition" refers to conditional logic, and there's definitely no conditional logic in the first sentence (the evidence).

   5%
4. D

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match3% picked this

   takes for granted that there will be an observable correlation between two phenomena if either of those phenomena

   Any time an answer is structured like takes for granted that X if Y, the Y should match the Evidence, the X should match the Conclusion. Author take for granted that their conclusion follows if their evidence is true. Did the evidence say - that one of two phenomena causally contributes to the other? Nope. The evidence was a correlation, so we can eliminate this. This answer goes onto say that the conclusion was "there will be a correlation between X and Y", so this answer essentially got the argument backwards. ARGUMENT 8+ hours sleep causes illness, if 8+ hours sleep correlated with illness. THIS ANSWER 8+ hours sleep correlated with illness, if 8+ hours sleep causes illness.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match19% picked this

   fails to consider that even if a specific negative consequence is not associated with a given phenomenon, that phenomenon

   Any time an answer is structured like fails to consider that even if X, it may be Y it's trying to make this sort of objection: "Even if your Evidence, X, is true, it could still be true that Y, which would go against your Conclusion". From the evidence, can we point to the idea that a specific negative consequence is not associated with a given phenomenon? Hmmm, not really. The evidence is that people who sleep at least 8 hours a night have a greater frequency of illness. That's a negative consequence (greater frequency of illness) that is associated with a given phenomenon (sleeping 8+ hours a night). We could flip that and say "under 8 hours sleep" was not associated with the negative consequence of "higher rate of illness", but it feels pretty icky to match the evidence half of an answer choice to some invisible idea that was not actually said out loud. Also, is "greater frequency of illness" a specific negative consequence? It's more specific than just saying "negative consequence", but it's still a pretty general consequence. That adds to the icky feeling. The most charitable read of this answer choice sounds like this: even if mild sleep deprivation isn't associated with a greater frequency of illness, mild sleep deprivation may have other negative consequences. If mild sleep deprivation has some negative consequences, then can we argue, "Hey, author, mild sleep deprivation is unhealthy?" Probably not, because we have no idea if those negative consequences relate to health at all. Some people think, "maybe sleep deprivation is fine when it comes to illness, but maybe it affects some other part of health". But it seems like LSAC's intent was to use healthy / unhealthy in the medical sense, dictated by the context. Saying "not unhealthy, and, in fact, probably bolsters the defenses against illness", it is implying this equivalent meaning: This shows that mild sleep deprivation does not weaken your defenses against illness, and in fact probably bolsters your defenses against illness.

   19%