PrepTest 121, Section 4, Question 9
A recent study of several hundred female physicians(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe foods that(20 more words not shown)
- BIt is very(15 more words not shown)
- CPhysicians are more(15 more words not shown)
- DThe physicians in(16 more words not shown)
- EThe vitamins folate(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the women getting more of these vitamins are healthier for other reasons?
The study finds a pattern: the more folate and B6 the physicians consume, the less likely they are to develop coronary disease. The researchers turn that pattern into a causal claim that the vitamins protect against heart disease. But what if the women consuming more of those vitamins also have other healthy habits? Those habits could help explain both what they eat and their lower disease risk.
What we’re looking for
For the weakening question, I'd look for another factor that travels with higher vitamin intake and could explain the healthier hearts. Evidence that the relationship fails elsewhere could also help, but the clearest route is to give the apparent benefit another source.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Foods rich in these vitamins also contain other nutrients that inhibit heart disease. That gives us the alternative explanation we wanted: women eating those foods receive both the vitamins and other potentially protective ingredients.
“Dietary intake” matters here. The passage doesn't say the women are taking isolated vitamin pills. Getting protein in your diet doesn't mean drinking nothing but protein powder; it could mean eating food that contains protein along with other nutrients. The same possibility applies to these vitamins.
The observed pattern could therefore arise even if folate and B6 themselves weren't responsible for the protection. A doesn't prove the vitamins have no benefit. It weakens the researchers' reason for assigning the benefit specifically to them.
- B
The conclusion doesn't say the vitamins work for women but fail for men. It simply concerns women. A fact saying effects are unlikely to differ between women and men gives us no contrary result to explain and no reason to reject the proposed effect in women.
- C
Knowing about diet and health isn't the same as demonstrating what caused this study's pattern. Knowledge might influence the physicians' behavior, but C doesn't tell us that the women with higher vitamin intake also made some different protective choice. We'd have to add that connection ourselves. A actually identifies another protective ingredient that accompanies the vitamins.
- D
Preexisting conditions could matter to a study, but this choice doesn't tell us that any participants had them or that they explain the relationship between vitamin intake and later disease. Not screening in advance, by itself, doesn't supply a specific reason the apparent vitamin benefit is misleading. Compare A, which directly gives a competing source of protection.
- E
Small amounts in most foods don't tell us how much these particular women consumed or whether that amount can have an effect. Some foods could contain more, and the women could eat different quantities. Availability across foods doesn't answer the causal question about the pattern the researchers observed.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.