Merton: A study showed that people

Answer choices

1. A

   No Match: impugns validity of evidence2% picked this

   raising a question about the validity of the study that

   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%
2. B

   No Match: other effects of pollution1% picked this

   contending that Merton needs to take into account other effects of

   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%
3. C

   Out of Scope: misunderstands1% picked this

   claiming that Merton misunderstands a crucial aspect of the

   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%
4. D

   Out of Scope: counterexample5% picked this

   raising a counterexample to the general conclusion that

   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%
5. E

   Correct90% picked this

   suggesting that alternative explanations for the study's findings need to be

   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.

   90%