September 1998 LSAT Section 2 Question 12

The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that countr...

JoeJune85 on July 23, 2020

Eliminating C

I thought introducing pollution in answer choice D was out of scope so eliminated it. When going through this question the first time I thought that C broke the casual relationship described in the argument. Can someone please explain why D is a better weakener?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on July 23, 2020

Hi @JoeJune85,

Thanks for the question! So in the stimulus we’re told that more average fat intake correlates with higher incidence of cancer, and lower average fat intake correlates with a lower incidence of cancer. So, the argument concludes, people who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.

Now we’re asked for something that weakens this argument. Take a look at (D), which tells us that countries with high average fat intake also have the highest levels of environmental pollution. Well, (D) just introduced an alternative cause, another possible reason for the higher incidences of cancer. And if it’s because of the environmental pollution, then it might not be because of the fat intake. So (D) weakens the argument supporting a causal relationship between fat intake and chance of getting cancer.

Now let’s take a look at (C), which tells us that cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake. Does that weaken the idea that eating less fat will reduce your risk of cancer? No, not at all. Maybe it’s a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake, but we don’t know about how it is in countries with a high average fat intake. Maybe in those countries it’s a SUPER prominent cause of death. We just don’t know, and so (C) doesn’t weaken as well as (D) does.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.