PrepTest 155, Section 4, Question 23
Researcher: Consumption of turmeric, a basic ingredient in(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AEven before analyzing(12 more words not shown)
- BHighly educated residents(12 more words not shown)
- CMost Singapore residents(8 more words not shown)
- DSingapore residents, on(15 more words not shown)
- EIndian curries generally(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Eating curry involves more than consuming one ingredient. Why single out turmeric?
The opening claim is that turmeric probably slows cognitive decline. If that were true, we would still need to be careful about what follows for an entire meal: another ingredient might have a different effect. And the evidence works in the other direction too. People who regularly eat curry scored better, but that doesn't tell us which ingredient, if any, produced the difference.
Perhaps their overall diets differ from those of people who rarely eat curry. That could help explain the test scores without making turmeric the cause. The researcher needs a reason to connect the broader dietary pattern with this particular ingredient.
Then we get the extra detail: the relationship is strongest among elderly Singapore residents of Indian ethnicity. Why would that be? My first thought is that the relevant group might consume more curry, and therefore more turmeric. More precisely, perhaps the curries they eat contain more turmeric. That would connect a stronger apparent benefit with a greater amount of the proposed beneficial ingredient.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to strengthen the researcher's explanation. We want evidence that makes turmeric a better explanation of the pattern, especially the stronger relationship in this group. We aren't trying to prove that curry or turmeric has a particular real-world health effect.
Working the answers
- A
Predicting a result before looking at the data doesn't establish that the proposed explanation is correct. The researchers could have had the right idea, or the observed association could have another cause. We need evidence supporting turmeric's role, not merely a fact about when the researchers first proposed it.
- B
This introduces another difference between regular curry eaters and other residents: education. That could complicate the interpretation of the cognitive-test scores rather than isolate turmeric's effect. We aren't given a rule eliminating education as a relevant difference, so B doesn't strengthen the claim that the ingredient explains the findings.
- C
This says curry eating is common among residents of Indian ethnicity. It doesn't explain why the relationship between eating curry and cognitive-test scores is stronger in that group. Having many regular curry eaters isn't the same as showing that their curry consumption is more strongly associated with better scores because of turmeric. The researcher needs that explanatory connection.
- D
The study compares residents within Singapore, not Singapore's results against those of other countries. Knowing Singapore consumes more curry per person doesn't establish what distinguishes its regular curry eaters or why turmeric explains their test scores. It adds a national comparison the argument doesn't rely on.
- ECorrect
Indian curries contain much more of the ingredient the researcher thinks is beneficial. That gives us a plausible explanation for the stronger relationship in the group whose customary curries would provide more turmeric: a larger amount of the proposed beneficial ingredient goes with the stronger observed pattern.
The useful distinction is turmeric content, not simply how spicy a dish tastes. Nor does the answer say every person of Indian ethnicity eats the same food. It provides a relevant difference in the curries that supports the researcher's explanation without proving that turmeric is the only cause or ruling out every other difference.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.