Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q23 Researcher: Consumption of turmeric

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

Researcher: Consumption of turmeric, a basic ingredient in curry dishes, probably slows cognitive decline.

Conclusion

Consuming turmeric probably slows cognitive decline.

Evidence

There was a correlation between eating curries (which have turmeric in them) and higher scores on cognitive-function tests.

This relationship was strongest for the people in the study of Indian ethnicity.

Evaluate

This is a classic Curious Fact / Explanation type argument.

Curious Fact Why is it that the curry-eaters in the study were less likely to have cognitive decline?

Author's Explanation Curry has turmeric, and turmeric apparently slows down cognitive decline.

We can affect these arguments in two ways: - Alternate Explanations for the curious fact - evidence affecting the plausibility of the Author's Explanation

What else could account for the curry-eaters in the study scoring better? - they cheated on the test - they exercise more - they do more things like Sudoku or language learning that preserve mental plasticity - there's some OTHER ingredient in curry that's the real difference-maker

Goal

Since we're doing Strengthen, we either want an answer to Rule Out an alternate explanation for why the curry-eaters had less apparent cognitive decline, or we want to Boost the plausibility of the author's explanation, which is that the turmeric in their curry is what's helping them.

When we're Strengthening a Curious Fact argument, the most common type of answer is to add plausibility to the author's story with a "No Cause / No Effect" answer or a "More Cause / More Effect" answer.

23.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the researcher's explanation of the research team's findings?

  1. Even before analyzing the database,

    Very Weak

    It's hard to say whether this counts as any support; the fact that they've always suspected something doesn't make it true. At a criminal trial, it doesn't add anything to the prosecution's case to say, "Even before this recent murder that Eddie has been accused of, we always thought Eddie would probably murder someone some day".

    1% picked this

  2. Highly educated residents of Singapore

    Weakens

    This provides a possible alternate explanation. If the curry-eaters are more likely to be highly educated, then maybe it's the high levels of education, not the turmeric in the curry, that is slowing down cognitive decline.

    6% picked this

  3. Most Singapore residents who are

    No Impact

    We already knew that the study found a correlation between people who ate curries regularly and better performance on the cognitive test. It doesn't matter whether the people who eat curries regularly are 10% of the data set, 40%, 70%, etc. If they're 10% of the data set but 15% of the people who got top scores on the cognitive test, then we would still have our correlation. So similarly, it doesn't matter if the Indian ethnicity segment of the data set is higher or lower than 50%. Either way, we found that within the segment of the data set who were of Indian ethnicity, the correlation between regularly eating curry and ranking higher on the cognitive test was especially strong.

    24% picked this

  4. Singapore residents, on a per

    No Impact

    It's irrelevant how Singapore residents compare to residents of other countries in terms of how often they eat curries. We could have done this study in Mexico, where people definitely eat curries less than residents of other countries, and it wouldn't affect how we think about the data set at all. If I say that "in a study we did at a certain prison, people who were left-handed were much more likely to believe religion than were people who are right-handed", it makes no difference whether left-handed people are more/less common than right handed people, and it makes no difference whether the residents of this prison are more/less left handed than those of other prisons, etc. Correlations just mean disproportionate representation. Whatever the underlying prevalence of left handed people are, they are more likely to be associated with religious beliefs. Similarly, whatever the underlying prevalence of frequent curry eaters were, they were more likely to be associated with better cognitive performance.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    Indian curries generally contain much

    Why this is right

    This provides a "More Cause, More Effect" strengthener that adds to the plausibility of the author's explanation. She believes that turmeric causes better cognitive performance when you're older. In the study, the correlation between curry-eating and cognitive performance was extra strong among people of Indian ethnicity. This answer makes it seem like "the connection between eating curry and being cognitively sharp was particularly strong in subjects who eat a heavy-turmeric style of curry."

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

    65% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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