#22 - Educator: Environmental factors clearly have little

[Fightforthat170]

Hi guys,

I have read everyone's posts and I do understand how (D) is the right answer based on the logic behind it.

But I have a more nuanced linguistic question about (D):

When I read (D) under time, I only interpreted as it saying something alone the lines like "Different societies have different proportions of kids do sports; different era also has different proportions of kids who do sports."

Therefore, I didn't necessarily interpreted in a sense that says "The proportion of kids doing sports is affected by the societies and time periods they are in."

Can someone point out what I missed in the interpretation I had? Is the phrase "varies greatly" supposed to imply influence?

Much thanks in advance for any help!

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, you didn't miss a thing there, Fightforthat170! That answer does not include any explicit indication of a causal relationship. However, it still manages to weaken the argument by introducing data that could suggest an environmental factor as opposed to a genetic one. Think of it this way: if environment was NOT a factor, and it was instead entirely genetic, we would expect fairly consistent participation across societies and eras, right? Answer D introduces variations in correlation from one time and place to another, and those variations would support some environmental factor at work, even if they don't clearly indicate that. It's just data, after all! But it's data that runs counter to what we would expect if the argument was correct.

[Henry Z]

I chose (A) because I thought it offered an alternative, non-environmental cause: if you're good at it, you tend to enjoy it. It's not that the environmental factors have little effect, but other personal factors, physiological and psychological, also affect one's willingness to participate in sports, and that explains the examples mentioned in the stimulus.

Now I think of it, however, I'm not sure how (A) affects the argument. As in LSAT, to suggest an alternative cause is to weaken a causal argument (here, environmental factors cause participation in sports), so (A) seems to be an opposite answer, because our real task is to strengthen that causality. If we take the stimulus as a partial causal argument, (A) also seems irrelevant by suggesting an alternative cause. Is that why (A) is wrong?

But still I can't believe (D) is the answer. It only says "the proportion of teenagers who participate in sports varies", not even correlated. If it "varies" irregularly or paradoxically, say, two totally different societies/eras, one loves sports while the other hates sports, have the same proportion of teenagers who participate in sports, doesn't that weaken the causality between the environment and teenage sports?

[Adam Tyson]

The author is arguing that environment does NOT impact participation, Henry. Answer A may strengthen that by suggesting that participation is impacted by something not environmental - athletic ability, which may be genetic in origin. To the extent answer A is suggesting an alternate cause, that would help, rather than hurt, the claim that environment is not a causal factor.

Answer D, on the other hand, suggests that they may in fact be something environmental at work. Variation over time in a single society suggests that something environmental rather than genetic is going on, as does variation from one society to another (so different cultural influences are at work). This undermines the claim that "environmental factors clearly have little effect."

[sarah_tucker@alumni.brown.edu]

Hi!

To follow up on all these discussion, I have a question about Answer Choice C.

I understand the reasoning behind D based on reading the discussion posts, but it seems like C could also fall into the category of suggesting an environmental factor because adult enthusiasm is linked to childhood enthusiasm. Is this answer wrong because it talks about adult participation rather than teenager participation?

Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Sarah,

Answer choice (C) is an environmental factor that wouldn't make sense with the information in the stimulus. In the same household, you would expect that the same adults are providing the same environmental factors. That actually strengthens the idea in the stimulus that it's not environmental factors that matter. The same adults have the same environmental factors, but the teenagers still have different results in terms of how the teenagers engage in sports.

Hope that helps!

[darrengao]

For option E, the fact there are a few program designs that are highly successful in encouraging inactive teenagers to participate in sports while the majority are ineffective does not weaken the argument? If environmental factors have little effect then different program designs, which is considered an environmental factor by the arugment, shouldn't have widely varied success rates.

[Paul Popa]

Hi Darren,

That's a great question! I would say that (E) is already accounted for in the stimulus. The stimulus says that school programs are "generally unsuccessful" and (E) says that only a few are highly successful. This is essentially two sides to the same coin, and since they are referring to the same set of information, it doesn't weaken the argument because the author has already included it in their evidence. We can infer that the author needs school programs to be more effective than they presently are in order to successfully count as a persuasive environmental factor. Hope this helps!