Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S2 · Q8 Merton: A study showed that people

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

Merton: A study showed that people who live on very busy streets have higher rates of heart disease than average.

Merton's Conclusion (I conclude)

Air pollution from auto exhaust causes an elevated rate of heart disease.

Merton's Evidence

A study showed that people who live on very busy streets have higher rates of heart disease than average.

Ortiz's Rebuttal

Are you use the heart disease is from auto exhaust? Could it be that people who live on busy streets have other lifestyle factors that would lead to more heart disease?

Evaluate

As soon as an LSAT student reads that first sentence, she should be thinking,

Curious Fact ... why is there a correlation between living on busy streets and having higher rates of heart disease?

Author's Explanation ... living near busy streets is causing the higher rate of heart disease (via air pollution from auto exhaust).

In the Assumption Family, we're supposed to react to this by thinking 1. Could there be some Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? 2. How plausible is the author's explanation?

Whenever we deal with a correlation between X and Y, which our author interprets to mean X causes Y, we're supposed to always think of these same two alternate explanations: - Y causes X (reverse causality) - Z explains X and Y (3rd factor)

Ortiz responds with a 3rd factor style objection. He's saying what if there is some other trait that correlates with living on busy streets, and that trait is the causal factor that's leading to higher risk of heart disease. For example, maybe people who live on busy streets are much more likely to be cigarette smokers, or heavy drinkers, or heavy eaters. That would explain why busy streets and heart disease are correlated, even though it's not the busy street's fault.

Goal

Look for something like, .

8.

Ortiz criticizes Merton's argument by

  1. raising a question about the

    No Match: impugns validity of evidence

    In all the Method of Response questions, there is almost always an answer choice saying that the 2nd person "denies the evidence" offered by the 1st person. But so far, that's never been correct. It's not very LSAT-style to deny someone's evidence. Ortiz isn't saying the study is invalid. He's saying there could be other possible ways to explain its correlation than the way that Merton has latched onto.

    2% picked this

  2. contending that Merton needs to

    No Match: other effects of pollution

    Ortiz isn't saying that Merton needs to account for other effects of air pollution. He's saying that Merton needs to account for other possible causes of why busy streets could be correlated with heart disease.

    1% picked this

  3. claiming that Merton misunderstands a

    Out of Scope: misunderstands

    The only finding from the study is that busy streets are correlated with higher rates of heart disease. Ortiz never "claims" that Merton misunderstood the correlation. Ortiz is asking whether Merton has arrived at a hasty conclusion, on the basis of the correlation. But jumping overconfidently to a conclusion on the basis of evidence X does not mean that you've misunderstood a crucial aspect of evidence X. We could say Merton misunderstand what can / can't be confidently inferred from the study's findings. But that's different, and Ortiz never explicitly claimed Merton misunderstood something, as this answer says.

    1% picked this

  4. raising a counterexample to the

    Out of Scope: counterexample

    Merton's conclusion is not exactly general, because he says "this elevated rate of heart disease". He's speaking specifically about the people in this study. Even if we grant that the conclusion is general, a counterexample to that conclusion would be data points of people who were exposed to air pollution from auto exhaust but had lower / normal risk of heart disease. Ortiz definitely never cites such data points in his reply.

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    suggesting that alternative explanations for

    Why this is right

    Ortiz is saying, "are you sure that just because living on busy streets and having higher risk of heart disease are correlated that one causes the other? Couldn't an alternate explanation be that people who live on busy streets have certain lifestyle factors, like smoking or drinking, that are the real reason their heart disease risk is higher?"

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

    91% 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