Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q3 Audiologist: What is often considered

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

Audiologist: What is often considered age-related hearing loss is really the accumulated damage of long-term exposure to loud noise.

Conclusion

The hearing-loss people think is from old age is really from accumulated damage of long-term exposure to loud noise.

Evidence

Remote populations who have had little exposure to loud noise have almost no "age-related" hearing loss.

Evaluate

The author is considering the Curious Question, and eschewing the common Explanation that "old age causes the hearing loss".

The author offers an Alternate Explanation: .

She strengthens her Hypothesis with a classic "No Cause, No Effect" piece of evidence: populations not exposed to long-term noise do not show hearing loss in old people.

Goal

Since this is Strengthen, we will probably add some more credence to the Author's Explanation that long-term exposure to noise is causing hearing loss at an old age: - maybe an example where - maybe an explanation of the causal mechanism that connects exposure to noise to hearing loss

It could also rule-out an Alternate Explanation for why the remote populations have little hearing loss ()

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the audiologist's argument?

Ancient medical texts describe methods
No Impact
We're trying to investigate the cause of hearing loss. We don't care what treatments exist.
0% picked this
Correct
Among remote populations, those people
Why this is right
This just adds more plausibility to the Author's Explanation that exposure to loud noise is the causal difference-maker that explains hearing loss. We nerds would call this answer "More Cause, More Effect", because it's showing data points that show the more someone was exposed to the supposed Cause, the more they exhibited the supposed Effect. And because this answer isn't comparing City Folk to Remote Folk, it's comparing "Remote Folk who spent some time in the noisy city" to "Remote Folk who never spent time in the noisy city", it's controlling for a lot of other potential alternate causes. They're essentially the same group of people, except for the variable of spending some time in the noisy city, and the ones exposed to the noise had more hearing loss.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
96% picked this
Those who live in urban
Out of Scope: awareness
We don't care whether people are aware of the noise or not; we just care whether it's adding up to cause them hearing loss when they're older.
1% picked this
Age-related hearing loss can make
No Impact: effects of hearing loss
We care about what's causing hearing loss, not what the effects of hearing loss are.
0% picked this
Those who work in environments
Unclear Impact
This is just establishing that some people definitely live lives that expose them to noise, but we weren't ever doubting that. This answer doesn't have any clear impact without it telling us how prevalent hearing loss was or wasn't among this group exposed to loud noise.
3% 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