need some help - Game 1916

[dilprit.shergill]

I would like to know if the below question has a conditional logic component?

argument core:
taking hormone supplement increases risks of breast cancer --> women should not take hormone supplements


Needless to say I got the question wrong, I would like to know why? I have a feeling it has something to do with conditional logic but I can't quite make it out.

is it something like this:

supporting premise: HS--> BC

contrapositive is: no BC--> no HS

Illegal Reversal?? BC --> no HS

Is it because it is an illegal reversal? Am I on the right page or not? Please explain

--

Women who undergo premature menopause are at slightly increased risk for heart disease, but taking hormone supplements to stave off menopause increases the risk for breast cancer. Women should not take hormone supplements to stave off early menopause.

Which of the following is mentioned in support of the main conclusion?



Because of an increased risk of breast cancer, women shouldn't take hormone supplements.


One treatment for premature menopause, hormone supplements, causes a higher incidence of breast cancer.

[timmydoeslsat]

I have reservations about the answer choices given for this one.

First, the argument presented has as its main conclusion that women should not use hormone supplements to stave off early menopause.

The evidence given for it is that the hormone supplements causes an increase in risk of breast cancer.

The two answer choices given do trouble me a little. The first one provided somewhat includes our main conclusion in the answer choice. But I do agree with it other than that fact that it does not qualify it in the same manner. We know the argument uses the fact of this increased risk of breast cancer to support the main conclusion.

The second answer choice does give us a bit of a distortion with what we are told. We know the risk is increased for breast cancer with these supplements, but do not know that the incidence of breast cancer are in fact higher.

So this is what ruins the second answer choice and would have me pick the first choice. There is no chance of the second AC being correct, and with only two options being available, I have no choice but to take the first one with its flaw as well.

This argument does not hinge on a conditional aspect. It does make a value judgement, if you will, in that it believes something increasing the risk of breast cancer is enough to not use it when it could potentially take away an increased risk of heart disease.

[dilprit.shergill]

Thank You for the explanation, however I'm still a little confused. I had selected the first answer choice (similar to you) however the game indicates that the second answer choice is correct. Can someone please confirm?

thanks again.

[timmydoeslsat]

It really is a question with two answers that have flaws within them.


Because of an increased risk of breast cancer, women shouldn't take hormone supplements.

This AC does not qualify itself like our conclusion does, which is to say should not take these supplements to stave off premature menopause.

One treatment for premature menopause, hormone supplements, causes a higher incidence of breast cancer.

This AC goes from increased risk to higher incidence, which is totally not correct.

So both do not adquately show us what is truly supporting our conclusion, which is simply an increased risk of breast cancer. I would simply know that this is what supports the main conclusion and chalk this one up to a question with two flawed answer choices.

[noah]

Good discussion!

I agree that it's not the best question in the game, but I'd say the second answer is better. Increased risk of a disease is generally (always?) based on a study showing that there's more of that disease occurring in a certain group.

The first answer cites the entire argument, which is much more than just the support for the conclusion.