Q22 - Psychologist: It is well known

[christine.defenbaugh]

There have been a lot of really great questions and answers posted in this thread, but unfortunately the size of the awesome discussion has made it difficult for new readers to sort through! I've condensed the thread down to just a few posts, and I've added what I hope will be a thorough and complete explanation. If you had a question that was deleted and you feel it has not been addressed in this new version of the thread, please PM me or repost your question!

Since this is a weaken question, the first stop is the core!

PREMISE: [easily angered] correlated with [perm. high blood pressure]
[perm. high blood pressure] correlated with [heart disease]
CONCLUSION: [psych. factors] can CAUSE [heart disease]

The good news is that this is a classic causation-correlation flaw. The bad news is that there are three parts and some particularly sticky answer choices.

The author is making a whole host of assumptions here. In order to make this claim of causation work, he'd need to be assuming that [easily angered] CAUSES [perm. high blood pressure] AND that [perm. high blood pressure] CAUSES [heart disease]. So, to weaken this argument, we can weaken either one of those assumed causation links.

The most common ways that the LSAT weakens causation claims is to show that instead of A causing B it's actually:

1) reversed: B causes A
2) centrally caused: C (new thing) causes both A and B
3) completely coincidental

We can use these standard attacks on *either* of the causation links being assumed. (E) is a slam dunk - a new thing [physiological factors] causes both [easily angered] AND [perm. high blood pressure]. Notice the perfect language reflection in (E) on the description of the groups. This damages the causal claim between [easily angered] and [perm. high blood pressure] by showing a central cause, and therefore damages the whole causal chain of the conclusion.

Unfortunately, the fact that either of the causal links being assumed can be attacked makes a few of the incorrect answers look incredibly tempting. Remember, though, that selecting an incorrect answer requires TWO WRONG MOVES: 1) accepting the incorrect answer and 2) rejecting the correct answer. While two of the answer choices are very sticky, the correct answer is extremely straight-forward, and lines up precisely with a common causal attack.

Let's tackle the two beasts:
INCORRECT ANSWER (B)
Why it's tempting
At first glance, this answer appears to damage the first causal link by reversing it. If we could show that [perm. high blood pressure] actually caused [easily angered] then we damage the entire causal chain of the conclusion.

Why it's wrong
Unfortunately, (B) doesn't actually do that. First, notice that this doesn't simply say that perm high blood pressure causes whatever. It says that medication for HBP causes whatever. Now, we might think that [perm. high blood pressure] causes [medication], but we don't have any information about how many people with [perm. high blood pressure] are taking this medication. What if it's only a few people?! What if no one takes it? (Compare this to PT40-S1-Q17, where a similar reversal showed that the medications referred to were commonly used)

The fact that this answer only applies to the subset of people taking medication AND we have no idea how large that subset is makes it suspect and less useful.

The bigger issue is that the medication "affects the moods". What does that mean?! Does it mean it causes people to become quick to anger? I suppose it's possible, but it's also just as possible that the medication always causes people to become way more chill. Or maniacally happy. Who knows?

This answer choice aspires to reverse the first causal link, but it just can't quite do the job.


INCORRECT ANSWER (D)
Why it's tempting

At first glance, this appears to just straight up reverse the causal link claimed in the conclusion. If would could directly reverse it and say that [heart disease] CAUSES [easily angered], that would totes weaken the conclusion!

Why it's wrong
Unfortunately, just like (B), this answer doesn't actually do that. Once again, we are dealing with a mere subset of the group that has [heart disease] - those who DISCOVER it. How many people that have heart disease actually discover it? What if it's only a small percentage? I need something to let me know this concept even applies to a meaningful portion of my [heart disease] peeps.

Additionally, just like (B) again, the thing the [discovery] causes doesn't quite line up: is "more easily frustrated" the same as "easily ANGERED"? I get frustrated all the time without being 'angry'. And I get angry without being 'frustrated'. They are fundamentally two different things, though they can sometimes overlap.

How much of the frustration caused by the heart-disease-discovery is anger-frustration? How much of the anger that we know correlates with heart disease is anger-frustration? We don't know! I can't tell if this reverses the causal link without knowing how much overlap there is!

As a final, practical/strategic note on (D): It would be a bit unusual for the LSAT to go to all the trouble of creating a three-part correlation chain only to have the correct answer ignore the middle bit and just straight up reverse the conclusion linkage.


The remaining two answer choices are not nearly as soul-crushing:
(A) Who cares about recovery? We just care about the causal link between [easily angered] and [heart disease].

(C) We're not concerned with those who have tranquil personalities - we need to know about people who are easily angered.



This is a beast of a problem, so please don't hesitate to ask questions! I hope this helps!


#officialexplanation

[bermudask8er7]

Can you explain why E is correct and that D is incorrect? Thanks!

[cyruswhittaker]

Embedded in the argument is a cause/effect fallacy. In sentence two, we are told that there is a correlation between people who get easily angered and having permanently high blood pressure.

In deriving the conclusion, the author assumes that being easily angered causes the high blood pressure, which, in turn, results in a higher chance of heart disease (due to the fact in sentence 3).

By attacking this assumption, we would also attack the overall argument (since it is formed on a causal chain).

Choice E does this. It attacks the assumption by saying that both permanently high blood pressure and being quick to anger have a common, alternate cause: physiological factors.

Choice D does not attack the argument. The argument is concerned with showing that there is a causal link between psychological factors and heart disease. Whether people with heart disease then become more frustrated by small difficulties is not related to the argument.

This was a tough question for me, and I would also appreciate any comments/suggestions. Hope this helps.

[chlqusghtk]

How about B? Can't medication be an alternative cause?

[cyruswhittaker]

(B) doesn't weaken the argument because it provides a cause for different moods.

But notice that the argument doesn't assert any such cause of being easily angered. All it does it make the assumption that because being easily angered and having high blood pressure are correlated, the former has a causal effect on the latter.

So, even if it was true that medication can greatly affect moods, it wouldn't impact the argument because one could reply that, even if that is true, it doesn't undermine the assumption that a partiular mood can also result in high blood pressure.

[irini101]

I understand E is obviously correct but still confused by D: it provides the possibility that the causality in the conclusion could be reversed: having heart disease causes anger--thus weakens the conclusion (anger causes heart disease).

Please enlighten me! Thanks in advance!

[chike_eze]

I understand E is obviously correct but still confused by D: it provides the possibility that the causality in the conclusion could be reversed: having heart disease causes anger--thus weakens the conclusion (anger causes heart disease).

Please enlighten me! Thanks in advance!

I think (D) is wrong because "easily frustrated by small difficulties" is not quite equivalent to "easily angered"

While, "quick to anger" in (E) is equivalent to "easily angered"

I think (D) would be correct if it was "Those who discover that they have Heart disease generally get angry easily"

Thoughts??

[rostov]

I read physiological factors as psychological factors. ugh

[jamiejames]

Is E simply showing that a stated causal relationship is in fact reversed, hence weakening the argument?

[lihanxiao1991]

Hey guys,

The original argument said: ("~" means correlation)
Premise: Psychological factors ~ Permanent high blood pressure ~ Heart disease

Conclusion: Psychological factors --> Heart disease

To simplify:
Premise: A ~ B ~ C
Conclusion: A --> C

I found the most used way to point out a correlation/causal fallacy is to introduce a 3rd factor that can cause both the correlated factors. Here (E) gives us factor X that can cause A & B.

I wonder, whether it could be correct if one answer introduces a factor Y that causes B and C simultaneously? Will it have the same effect as factor X in (E)?

[db_8400]

Did anyone else find this particular section super hard. I usually avg 3-4 wrong in LR and this entire section had be stumped

[pewals13]

The Mission:

To weaken the argument of the psychologist

The Core:

Becoming angry often induces temporary incidents of high blood pressure
+
Easily angered personalities are correlated with permanently high blood pressure
+
Permanently high blood pressure is correlated with heart disease

=>

Heart disease can result from psychological factors

Gap:

You have two very clear correlation/causation statements. Be prepared to weaken them by:
1) Demonstrating a reverse causal relationship
2) Demonstrating an outside cause for both the cause and effect
3) Demonstrating that the cause and effect are unrelated

Answer Choices:

(A) Out of Scope: Recovery time is not relevant to the cause of heart disease

(B) Unclear: This is a common answer choice type on strengthen/weaken questions. This answer can weaken depending on the additional assumptions you make. If you assume that the medication to control high blood pressure makes people angry then it would weaken, if you assume that the medication promotes tranquility it would not. If you can interpret an answer choice going one way or another based on the assumptions you make, it is wrong.

(C) Opposite: This is an example of no cause (no anger) no effect (no heart disease). It would strengthen the argument.

(D) Out of Scope (too weak): This answer choice tries to trick you into thinking it is a cause and effect reversal, however, "becoming more easily frustrated by small difficulties" is not the same as having an angry personality

(E) CORRECT: If high blood pressure makes people quick to anger, the conclusion is severely weakened because the causal relationship asserted in the stimulus no longer holds true.

[cwolfington]

The author equates "easily angered" to "psychological factors", so the argument is: Anger (psychological factors)-> Permanent High Blood Pressure->Likely to have heart disease

And from this, the author's conclusion in the stimulus is: Anger (psychological factors)->Likely to have heart disease

If you diagram answer choice (E), I say the argument becomes: Physiological factors->Permanent high blood pressure, and, Physiological factors->Anger (psychological factors)

But we know that Permanent high blood pressure->Likely to have heart disease; therefore the new (E) diagram is:
Physiological factors->Permanent high blood pressure->Likely to have heart disease, and, Physiological factors->Anger (psychological factors)

Thus the author's conclusion, Anger (psychological factors)->Likely to have heart disease, is invalid and ceases to have relevance. In other words, answer choice (E), if true, most weakens the psychologist's argument.

[daijob]

I eliminated E because I thought physiological factor=psychological factor=anger, but anger is phychocological factor and not physioloical factor right??

Thank you

[tommywallach]

Yes. Anger is not physiological, but psychological (i.e. it's an emotion).

-t

[ying_yingjj]

I also read too fast and thought psychological is the same as physiological, but they are not the same.

Physiological factors include age, gender, drug uses (alcohol) etc.

Here, the conclusion says: psychological factors (such as depression, anxiety) can be the cause for heart disease.
E says, no, the cause is not psychological, but physiological. Because getting old can cause permanent high blood pressure and also generally make people quick to anger.

I think if B says medication for controlling high blood pressure can generally make people easy to anger will also be correct. The main concept is a third thing that caused both A and B to happen instead of A caused B to happen. Which weakens the conclusion. But B instead says "greatly affect the moods" which can affect people to be happier or calm (you know how they say "mood swings" means the person can be top of the world for one minute, but be depressed the next minute.)

[bswise2]

D is wrong because it specifies "those who discover." We don't care if they know they have heart disease. The "set" that the stimulus is talking about is every individual who has heart disease. D limits that set to only those who have discovered it.

[andrewgong01]

Was the first sentence just an enticing trap to make it seem like a premise that we have to accept angry leads to high blood pressure. Because of that I was reluctant to choose anything that challenges the causal link until I noticed it said "temporary incidents of high blood pressure".

For "B" I ruled it out differently; I didn't think it was ambiguous about what it meant by "affecting mood" (was it happier or angrier?). I thought "B" was a good choice except "B" may not support reverse causality in that "B" never said how the medication alleviates high blood pressure (maybe it is via mood adjustments and hence strengthens the casual link ). I haven't seen the population subset as an issue before in other questions where Answer Choice "B" applies only to people who take medication and we need to assume, for "B" to be correct, that everyone takes the medication.

For "D" I thought frustrated and anger were pretty similar and I think it would be unfair that the answer choice was wrong solely because of that . I think the reason why "D" can be ruled out is more so because it does not tell us anything about the casual relation between anger + high blood pressure before the disease is discovered. Would it be correct to say that "D" tells us what is true after you have the heart disease but not how you got the heart disease. It's true that"D" is now saying it is the disease that makes you more frustrated (lets assume frustrated = anger for now) but that is after you have the disease but perhaps this could be just be a vicious cycle where both are causing each other. It could have been anger that first caused the heart disease then it exacerbates your mood, which then exacerbates your health (and the cycle continues). In all, it seems more like "D" ignores what intially caused the disease, which is what the argument is more so interested in than what happens after you have a heart disease.

[ChuhangD451]

I am still a little confused about why answer C is wrong. I understand that there are two correlations:

Anger personality ~ High blood pressure ~ Heart disease

and the conclusion states a causal relationship between:

Anger personality can cause heart disease

To weaken this causal relationship, we can either attack either one of the two correlational relationship, precluding any causal relationship established.

I understand why E works, as it basically attacks the first correlational relationship, saying that a third variable causes both anger personality and high blood pressure.

However, for answer C, it says that people with permanently high blood pressure who have tranquil personality virtually never develop heart disease.
Admittedly, it is true that this answer choice might strengthen the conclusion by saying that when there is no cause (no anger personality), there is no heart disease. However, this answer choice also says that high blood pressure never develop heart disease, which clearly undermines the second correlational relationship and precludes the causal relationship between high blood pressure and heart disease. Could anyone help point out my logical flaw?

[PhoebeL747]

Let me add my two cents here on how to eliminate B and D:

(B) says medication can affect mood, but that doesn't hurt the conclusion. Assuming it affects mood by making patients easier to anger, it still can be plausible that anger causes heart disease. It just adds that medication causes this psychological factor.

(D) doesn't help because it also provides a correlation: those who discover heart disease tends to be easily frustrated. It's simply provides more correlation between psychological factors and heart disease.

Only (E) straight up gives a causation: physiological factors causes both high blood pressure and anger, which weakens the first correlation link of the argument.