PT 59, S2, Q8 Though ice cream is an excellent source

[aileenann]

This is a weakening question. In this kind of question, we need to make sure we read all the answer choices because there may be more than one choice that does indeed weaken the question.

Additionally, we need to pick the one that most directly and most strongly weakens the argument while paying special attention to the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that people must be choosing to increase their calcium through cheese rather than through ice cream based on the fact that ice cream seems to be decreasing in popularity and cheese increasing. Let's look at the answer choices:

(A) While there is no statistical evidence provided, we should, at the least, presume that the author’s claim about the two foods’ relative popularity is accurate, even if s/he does not provide the source of that information. Ways of weakening an argument by pointing to a lack of statistical data or rarely if ever correct ways to logically weaken an argument. This is party in fact because this is a cheap shot. You need to take the argument on its own terms rather than relying on what is missing.

(B) This was probably something that occurred to you simply based on your everyday life experience (be wary of such reasoning generally, but in this case it’s helpful). That is, whenever an author has a causal conclusion, you should always ask whether there is some explanation for the causation rather than the one the author provides. Usually, the author is assuming that there is not another explanation. Attacking such fundamental assumptions is often the best way to weaken an argument overall.

(C) This is plain old wrong _ there are no individuals mentioned in the passage, and you never want to accuse people quoted in the passage as "biased" _ that is the same as calling the author a liar (another no-no on the LSAT).

(D) The author never discusses or relies on the relative merits of cheese and ice cream in making the argument, so this answer choice is out of scope.

(E) This too is unrelated. If for no other reason, the word "never" is the wrong degree for this argument (and this is not the only problem in this argument).

The only plausible answer we have is (B). Now that we've read through this, we can pick it and move on directly.

[luxembourg222]

Hello,

I understand that this is a simple correlation-causal flaw question, but I was just wondering what is wrong with answer choice (E). Maybe I am overthinking but it seems like (E) makes sense, too. The author's logic goes: ice cream decrease-cheddar cheese increase, so people choose cheddar over ice cream for calcium. Isn't she/he saying that the amount of people decrease(ice cream) goes to the amount of people increase(cheddar)? Is it because of 'never' that makes this answer choice off?
Thanks in advance!

[Yit HanS103]

Hi, I was a little confused with this flaw question as well, since I still think that answer choice E is the most attractive one.
I didn't think B was the correct one because you accept premisses as they come and your purpose is to attack, or doubt the conclusion, and that is exactly what E does, it attacks the conclusion.
Please, could you give me a better explanation than the one in the book. Why B is the correct answer?
I want to be sure of the explanations before I move on.
THANK YOU !!!!