Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Help  (Read 554 times)

nooyyllib

  • Guest
Help
« on: July 20, 2009, 04:59:12 PM »
could you guys help me understand these two questions..thanks

Over the last 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people over the age of 65 living in this region.  This is evident from the fact that during this time the average age of people living in this region has increased from approximately 52 to 57 years.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(A) The number of people in the region under the age of 18 has increased over the last 10 years. (this is the answer)

I just don't see how that can logically work. I know they are trying to mess with average and concrete number issue.






Although high cholesterol levels have been associated with the development of heart disease, many people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease, while many without high cholesterol do.  Recently, above average concentrations of blood particle lipoprotein were found in the blood of many people whose heart disease was not attributable to other causes.  Dietary changes that affect cholesterol levels have no effect on lipoprotein levels.  Hence there is no reason for anyone to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease.   

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?

(C) It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease.

Thanks.

prospectivelaw27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Help
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2009, 09:24:14 PM »
With the first one:

Would you agree that if there are 4 people with ages 7,8,9,10 the average age is 8.5? If you know that recently the average age has increased from 8.5 to let's just say 9 couldn't that mean that either there are less young people (if you take away the 7 year old, the average age is 9) or there are more older people? The answer A states that there are more younger people, so let's say the people become 6,6,6,7,8,9,10. In order to have more younger people, yet have a higher average than before, you'll need to have more older people as well.
6,6,6,7,8,9,10,11,11,11,11. Therefore A supports the conclusion of the stimulus.

I hope that helps...the answer A allows you to eliminate the other option that would increase the average.

With the second one:

The conclusion that there is no reason for ANYONE to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease is too extreme. In the first sentence, it states that high cholesterol has been associated w/ the development of heart disease and that "many" people with high cholesterol DO NOT develop heart disease. However, SOME people do develop heart disease as due to high cholesterol. Therefore, by stating that NO ONE should make dietary changes would be overlooking the fact that high cholesterol does contribute to heart disease (C).

Hope this helps!

River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Help
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2009, 02:44:53 PM »
: 1) 1--------10 years
     10 kids (17) and 100 men under 57

  2)1-------10 years
    100 kids (17) and 100 men under 57 
Now 2) strenthen, Right?



Although high cholesterol levels have been associated with the development of heart disease, many people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease, while many without high cholesterol do.
Conclusion: high chol----~heart disease


Recently, above average concentrations of blood particle lipoprotein were found in the blood of many people whose heart disease was not attributable to other causes.
: blood particle lipoprotein----  high cholesterol (1)

Dietary changes that affect cholesterol levels have no effect on lipoprotein levels.  Hence there is no reason for anyone to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease. 
: Dietary---~lipoprotein
  Dietary----~heart disease
  =~lipoportein---~heart dieses(2)
1+2=High cholesterol---heart disease(3: premise)

Now the conclusiion is faluty from the presimse 3) because the conclusion confuses causation with correlation.