LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningMedium
A recent study showed that children who regularly consume sugary drinks are more likely to perform poorly in school. This has led many to conclude that sugary drinks directly cause academic decline. However, critics point out that children from lower-income households, who often have less access to healthy food options, also tend to consume more sugary drinks and disproportionately face academic challenges. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the conclusion that sugary drinks directly cause academic decline?
- AChildren from higher-income households often consume sugary drinks but maintain high academic performance.
- BParental involvement in education is a stronger predictor of academic success than diet.
- CSchools with healthier lunch programs report higher average student performance.
- DMany children who consume sugary drinks regularly still perform well in school.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Children from higher-income households often consume sugary drinks but maintain high academic performance.
Option D introduces a scenario where the proposed cause (sugary drinks) is present, but the effect (academic decline) is absent, suggesting that other factors related to socioeconomic status might be at play, thus weakening the direct causal link.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. While true, this introduces an alternative cause for academic success, but doesn't directly address the causal link or lack thereof between sugary drinks and academic decline in the context of the given correlation.
- C. This supports the idea that diet affects performance but doesn't specifically weaken the link between sugary drinks and academic decline while accounting for other variables.
- D. This weakens the argument slightly but doesn't address the underlying correlation or potential confounding factors as strongly as D.
Weakening an Argument
To weaken an argument is to introduce new information that makes the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises, often by challenging a causal link, presenting an alternative cause, or showing the premises might not lead to the conclusion.
- Targets the logical connection between premises and conclusion.
- Can introduce confounding variables or alternative explanations.
- Does not necessarily prove the conclusion false, just makes it less probable.
Memory trick: Hammer the link, break the chain, question the claim.