A question from AM Newyork

[voodoochild]

98% of mothers who didn't receive the daily dose of adult nutrition during the pre-pregnancy program gave birth to babies with lower immunity. Hence, if a mother forgot to eat proper nutrition during the pre-pregnancy program, there is a good chance that the babies will be born with lower immunity than if mother didn't forget to take the daily dose of adult nutrition during the pre-pregnancy program.


Two questions :-
a) this argument seems pretty valid to me. How can we weaken it?
b) Is this argument about causality? I don't see any causal indicators described in the Powerscore book. I feel that the conclusion is about correlation.

I know that this is not an official question. I hope that that will not deter us from analyzing this problem. But I guess the argument is pretty much LSATish. The author of the argument was a Yale Law school graduate I googled him

Please help.

[Adam Tyson]

No worries about it not being an official question, voodoo - in fact, it's good practice to try out your LSAT-thinking in other areas, just to see what that looks like.

First, I would say this does not look causal in the same way an LSAT causal argument looks to me, although the author might be thinking there's a causal relationship and we might be inferring it. The author doesn't use causal language to say that poor nutrition leads to or results in low immunity. All he does is present a correlation. What it does look like, at least in part, is a numbers/percentages question.

If I were to see something like this on the LSAT, I would start picking at it. First, I would take note that the author doesn't define what he means by "lower immunity." Lower than what? The immunity level of babies whose mothers had good nutrition? That's probably what he meant, but he didn't say it, so it opens up some flaw possibilities. Maybe he means lower immunity than their mothers? Lower than the national average? Be suspicious of comparisons that aren't clear in this way.

The next thing I would pick at is the whole issue of "forgetting". Is forgetting the only way that moms don't eat well? What if there are even more moms that don't forget, but instead make a conscious decision not to eat good nutrition? And what about the idea of eating - is that the only way to get proper nutrition? Maybe there are prenatal vitamins that do the same thing - is that the same as eating? I don't know - it's not clear here. Could they have gotten it intravenously? By inhaling a nutrient-rich gas? By absorbing nutrient-rich water through their skin?

Because there is so much left unknown in this argument, you probably wouldn't see anything quite like it on the LSAT, where the authors tend to write tighter arguments with less room for interpretation. Still, like I said, practicing these skills any time you can is worth it to keep developing those mental muscles.

Good question, and thanks for sharing this excerpt!

Adam

[voodoochild]

Thanks as usual for your detailed reply! I am a big fan of Powerscore book and instructors.

I have a quick question - here's what I thought in the subway -

#1 - If I say that -- mothers who received DD of AN [daily dose of adult nutrition] also gave birth to LI babies would be irrelevant because the argument is not saying that only because mothers don't eat DD of AN, babies are born with XYZ. Essentially, the author is not assuming, at least as stated, a causal connection. Hence, mothers who get a daily dose would be irrelevant.

#2 - The author uses "there is a good chance" -- he has left open a possibility that there will be some mothers who get daily dose but still give birth to babies with lower immunity. He hasn't used any extremely language. Hence, mothers who get daily dose and still deliver babies with lower immunity would be irrelevant....not sure though.....

Please let me know your thoughts on above two points.

Thanks again for your help
Voodoo

[Steve Stein]

Interesting discussion. In response to your first question, you are correct that mothers who do get a daily dose of adult nutrition are irrelevant to the discussion, because this stimulus deals only with the population of mothers who do not get that daily dose of nutrition.

In response to your second question, when the author says "there is a good chance" that still only deals with the babies from the population of mothers who did not get regular nutrition. "Good chance" means that the lowered immunity is not guaranteed, but implies nothing about the mothers who did get sufficient adult nutrition.

I hope that's helpful! let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve and Adam,
Thanks for your reply. A quick question about the second one -

If the conclusion were causal (say): Lack of nutrition given to mothers causes babies to be born with lower immunity ...

Then, if the answer choice says, 'Mothers who get nutrition also sometimes give birth to babies with lower immunity' would weaken the argument correct? Essentially, as your book says, there is some other cause to it.....

Thoughts?

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. "Sometimes" makes for a pretty soft claim, but a choice that would reflect your point, and deal with mothers who did have sufficient daily nutrition, might say something like "Mothers who were provided with sufficient daily nutrition were at least as likely to have babies with lowered immunity as those who did not get sufficient daily nutrition."

I hope that's helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Question- is there a reason why you are stressing on the fact that "sometimes" is a weak claim? 

The hypothetical conclusion above (Lack of nutrition given to mothers causes babies to be born with lower immunity ...) says that ONLY lack of nutrition to mothers is the reason why babies are born with lower immunity. If I say that there is ONE thing in the world, say, some mothers who get nutrition also give birth to babies with lower immunity, then it will hurt author's conclusion. There are two reasons why-
#1. This will be an attack of generality vs specificity. 
#2. As your book says- "some" = at least one. Hence, in theory, "some" includes "all." 

Thoughts? 

[Steve Stein]

Hi Voodoochild,

Thanks for your message; I have a few responses. First, the claim is that lack of proper nutrition is likely to cause low-immunity babies. This is not at all the same as saying that improper nutrition is the ONLY cause.

Also, 'some" doesn't exactly include "all." Rather "Some" might potentially refer to "all."

"Sometimes" is a weak claim. As you know, it just means "at least one, maybe more."

Just like when I say "You might have won yesterday's lottery." There is a chance that you are holding the winning ticket and that such a win is certain, but it's unlikely and my claim is weak (meaning that it's far from a guarantee).

Back to the question at hand, to say that "some" well-nourished mothers had babies with lower immunity is weak; you could be referring to one well-nourished mother (possibly sickly, disease-stricken, and maybe even with low immunity herself) who had a baby with lowered immunity.

Let's think about if this were the case, in a real-world situation; how would you respond to this argument?

Dr. A: I think that lack of good nutrition probably causes mothers to give birth to babies with low immunity.

Dr. B: I doubt that and here's some evidence that will hurt your case: I know of one woman who is well-nourished but still had a baby with low immunity...I forgot to mention, she's a drug addict with a compromised immune system herself, but she's well fed--so my point still holds..."

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether it's clear.

Thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve,
Thanks for your excellent reply. I have two quick questions.

First, the claim is that lack of proper nutrition is likely to cause low-immunity babies. This is not at all the same as saying that improper nutrition is the ONLY cause.

Steve,
I guess there is a gap here. While discussing this question, I came up with the following claim:

Steve and Adam
Thanks for your reply. A quick question about the second one -

If the conclusion were causal (say): Lack of nutrition given to mothers causes babies to be born with lower immunity ...

Then, if the answer choice says, 'Mothers who get nutrition also sometimes give birth to babies with lower immunity' would weaken the argument correct? Essentially, as your book says, there is some other cause to it.....

question #1
As you can see, I have written a very strong conclusion above. I believe that in the above case, with the word "causes", the author is assuming that lack of nutrition is the ONLY cause. correct? There is a subtle difference but it will really help us if you could clarify for me.

Let's think about if this were the case, in a real-world situation; how would you respond to this argument?
Dr. A: I think that lack of good nutrition probably causes mothers to give birth to babies with low immunity.

Dr. B: I doubt that and here's some evidence that will hurt your case: I know of one woman who is well-nourished but still had a baby with low immunity...I forgot to mention, she's a drug addict with a compromised immune system herself, but she's well fed--so my point still holds..."

question #2
My response would be that Dr. A says "probably causes" -- he is, in effect, considering one of many causes. He is not saying that the lack of nutrition is THE ONLY cause. Hence, Dr. B's argument is irrelevant. Please let me know if my understanding is correct.

Thanks again....
Voodoo Child

[Steve Stein]

Hi voodoochild,

Thanks for your message. In response to your first question, saying that something causes something else is not the same as asserting that it is the only cause. For example, we would all agree that severe lack of sleep causes exhaustion. But this is not the same as saying that it is the only cause.

So, to say that severe sleep deprivation causes exhaustion is to say that severe sleep deprivation is a cause of exhaustion (and there may be other causes as well).

In response to your second question, Dr. A is saying that lack of good nutrition probably causes mothers to have babies with low immunity. This is somewhat weaker than the first claim discussed above; Dr. A is saying that lack of proper nutrition is probably a cause of low immunity babies (and there may be other causes as well).

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this clears up this causal issue--thanks!

~Steve