Q22 - In a study, one group

[laura.bach]

This question got me too (chose (B)), but here's how I convinced myself of (A) in a way that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think).

(B) is a type of answer choice I call "the anomaly". It goes like this:

"Eating snickers is bad for you."
"Some people eat snickers and live to be 100."

Well, first of all, that's totally unfair. But more importantly, one or two randos don't invalidate the argument. The red flag is words that indicate "some": many, a few, a portion, several, etc.

(B) uses the word "many" (which I initially confused for "most"), and "many" is a classic "some" indicator.

Reworded, I think of (B) like this:
"Some people eat a lot of protein and still gain body fat."

Well, honestly, that's a huge bummer for those people. Maybe those "several" people who gain body fat while eating protein are just forever doomed to gain body fat no matter what they do, but it doesn't mean that eating protein isn't the best way to lose body fat.

----

In justifying (A), I still have an issue that it doesn't necessarily mean the people in the experiment did lose any body fat, but I guess at least calling out the possibility is strong enough here. I like the suggestion that it's acknowledging the subtle shift and that's what the LSAT writers want to see. That, combined with the classic "anomaly choice" has let me put this problem to rest.

[mjl246]

Normally reading conditional statements on the forum are tough for me, but it's the only way to really understand this question:

The error is in the shift from lo-carb hi-protein helps people lose weight -> lo-carb hi-protein helps people lose body fat. I think most of you noticed this; it's the assumption the author makes.

To weaken something, you want to show that even when the sufficient exists, the necessary doesn't - so take the SA and negate the NA. You get: lose weight -> ~lose body fat. (a) is the contrapositive of this (lose body fat -> ~lose weight). Note that (a) is in reference to the supposedly inferior weight-loss tactic.

[805218400]

Thanks for mshinners! I did not pay attention to the shift between "lose weight" and "lose fat", once I notice that, this question seems very easy

[mswang7]

Premises: group 1 - high protein low carb <-lost more weight
group 2 low protein high carb
Concl: Most effective way to lose body fat (not weight) is max protein & "shun" carbs (group 1)
Gaps: Losing more weight is not necessarily equivalent to losing body fat (what if you're losing muscle)?
There is extreme language in the conclusion, "best" (which we can only conclude if we have tested all possible methods of losing body fat) & "shun."
Prephrase: The weight lost by G1 is mostly muscle/ other non fats or show any other method that is better at losing body fat than max protein, shunned carbs

A. Still uncertain of why this is correct but I understand why the other choices are incorrect. I think this is saying G2 water weight replaces? any fat lost. G1 water weight does not replace any fat lost. I feel like this would do nothing to the argument. I am not sure I am understanding the use of "compensating" correctly here and what the last word "not" refers to exactly - not retain water or not compensate for weight of any body fat lost or both?
B. Protein causes body fat (shows opposite of what we want so its a weakener to some extent but neglects the second requirement of the argument, shunning carbs)
C. G1 causes fat to convert to muscle, so even tho net weight may remain the same body fat is actually decreasing (this would strengthen our conclusion)
D. This means the weight loss from G2 may have been a result of exercise & not their diet, strengthening our conclusion
E. When G1 changed their diet back they regained weight - strengthens

[JeremyK460]

lots of posters are talking about quantity indicators like 'many' and 'some' in reference to the size of outliers in the sample of the study...

the stimulus asserts that this is controlled for. the study is representative in terms of its sample in both size and subject qualities (within reason)

for these answer choices in particular, you could turn 'many' into 'all' without affecting its strength/force

(b) the answer talks about 'large amounts of protein' but the stimulus mentions 'high protein' and 'low protein' of a kind of diet. these might not mean the same thing. for instance:
i'm on a high protein diet at the moment. my protein intake is 160 grams a day
my friend is on a low protein diet. his intake is 260 grams a day
this is because he weighs 350 pounds and i weigh 150
so to speak in terms of 'large amounts' can be described in different ways. this is because 'large amount' and 'high amount' are reference sets of a total set that is (in this case) relative to a particular subject being studied
so change 'many' to 'all' all day or many day...it doesn't matter lol

(c) talks about 'how' a physiological mechanism could produce the results given for one of the groups being studied. i don't have enough information in this answer choice to reasonably infer how this mechanism might affect the results in a way that would question how the results were interpreted.

(d) probably helps the argument

(e) there's not enough information about what the 'normal diets' they went back to were.
the stimulus only mentions what their protein and carb levels were, but not the particular diet they were on. if i just got finished being a subject in this experiment (where they had me on a low-carb / high-protein diet) and i got back to my 'normal diet' where i was intaking a 'moderate level of protein and carbs' that doesn't necessarily mean i'm going back to eating any more/less carbs than i was eating during the experiment.

my normal diet containing a moderate level of protein and carbs could be the keto diet, or the atkins diet, or the paleo diet, which are all types of low carb / high protein diets.

so the answer is in general terms within the scope of the discussion, but just too broad to reliably draw an appropriate inference from

(E) Out of scope. The argument is about what happens while on the diet, not what happens after the diet.

"the argument is about what happens while on the diet, not what happens after the diet" only if we assume that their 'normal diet' of 'moderate levels of protein and carbs' weren't already a TYPE of low/high carb and protein diet.

i think this answer choice is wrong not because it's 'irrelevant' but because it's simply too ambiguous to draw a good inference...

but to say that "what happens after the study (this particular kind of study)" is generally out of scope is not enough to explain why this answer is wrong

if you're analyzing a SYSTEM (like a diet) and conclude something about its efficacy, you're making a claim about its endurance (amongst other parts as well). if my diet (system) stops working after 10 days, i can't call it an effective diet/system.

so it wouldn't be 'out of scope' to think about what happens AFTER this particular type of study/argument if their return to their normal diet were a carb:protein diet similar to the one used in the experiment. it would actually be pretty crucial in determining its efficacy.

when you implement a system and intend on judging its efficacy, you have to measure its stability/endurance. a honda car can't necessarily be called efficient if it breaks down after a year. just like a diet can't necessarily be called efficient if it stops working after 10 days.