A survey was recently conducted among ferry passengers on
the
who had taken anti-seasickness medication before their trip reported symptoms
of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication. It is clear, then
that despite claims by drug companies that clinical tests show the contrary,
people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medications.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the
conclusion above?
(A) Given rough enough weather,
most ferry passengers will have some symptoms of seasickness.
(B) The clinical tests reported
by the drug companies were conducted by the drug companies’ staffs.
(C) People who do not take
anti-seasickness medication are just as likely to respond to a survey on
seasickness as people who do.
(D) The seasickness symptoms of
the people who took anti-seasickness medication would have been more severe had
they not taken the medication.
(E) People who have spent money
on anti-seasickness medication are less likely to admit symptoms of seasickness
than those who have not.
没有吃药会恶心的更厉害，当然吃药就是减轻症状-药有效
The logic flaw in the stimulus is that the author assumed a false causation relationship.
Taking pill causes seasickness.
He mistakenly thought that the former caused the latter since there is a sequential relationship between the two. He failed to consider the possibility that with or without the former, the latter might happen.
The follows would weaken or completely invalidate a causation relationship:
demenstrate when presumed cause happens, effect doesn't follow.
Effect happens without the cause.
Effect acutally causes the "cause".
An alternative cause.
有因无果，有果无因，倒因为果，他因亦果。。。
When an author in LSAT talks about a causation relationship, he/she always thinks that is the ONLY cause!
Causation logic is very important! Lots of LR questions are testing your understanding of it.
Be very alter to the causation indicators:
effect, response, produce, cause and reason etc...
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |