Q2 - One way kidney stones can

[irini101]

I narrow down to A and D, but not sure why A is incorrect. I guess it's because of "rarely get additional stones" (could be staying at the same level or decrease) in A constitutes a scope shift from "decrease" in stimulus?

Could any one please confirm whether I get the reason why A incorrect? Thanks a lot!

[maryadkins]

Our paradox is:

-when urine in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium, it causes kidney stones

-but increasing calcium for many people lowers chances of recurring kidney stones

(D) explains this by telling us that if we intake more calcium, it means the calcium is going to avoid our kidneys in favor of our intestines (bodies are crazy!)

(A) is wrong because it just boosts the paradox without explaining why it's happening. Okay, so what's true for people is also true for mice. BUT WHY?

(B) is irrelevant. We're concerned why increasing calcium reduces recurrence.

(C) But why does increasing calcium lower recurrence?

(E) Same as (C).

[irene122]

(A) reminds me of a bunch of LR (mostly strengthen/weaken/flaw of reasoning question type) with "test on human" and tempting contenders with "test on animal". Could "test on animal" really strengthen/weaken validity of "test on human" in the stimulus?

Any thought would be appreciated!

[anjelica.grace]

Could "test on animal" really strengthen/weaken validity of "test on human" in the stimulus?

I actually have always wondered about this question myself. Can anyone answer?

[maryadkins]

irene122 wrote:
Could "test on animal" really strengthen/weaken validity of "test on human" in the stimulus?


I actually have always wondered about this question myself. Can anyone answer?

Good question, guys. The answer depends. You can't contradict whatever you've been told about the tests on humans (premises are true) but sometimes you can strengthen a premise's/premises' connection to a conclusion (or weaken that connection) by supplementing with evidence of animal testing. It's not a very strong way of doing it, but if the other answer choices are worse, it's possible.

It's good to be wary about the leap from humans to animals, and I agree that most often animal testing isn't going to be the right answer when the question is about human testing or human phenomena, but you don't want to write these kinds of answers off completely as a categorical rule.