Doctors in Britain have long suspected that patients who wear tinted

The conclusion: when you wear tinted glasses, it must be because you're depressed or hypochondriacal. In other words, the depressions causes you to wear the glasses.

Why? Because tests confirmed that folks who wear tinted eyeglasses are especially likely to be depressed and hypochondriacal.

What's the gap? Well, the correlation/causation issue should be jumping out at you here. Just because these two things tend to occur together doesn't mean one causes the other. It could be that the causation is reversed, or something causes both of them.

(E) plays on this issue. Perhaps the glasses cause the depression, not, as the argument concludes, the other way around. Negated, we see that the glasses do cause depression, which does call into question the argument - could we draw that conclusion based on the evidence given if we knew that tinted glasses cause the depression? No.

As for the other answers:

(A) is tempting, as it addresses causation. But it establishes a cause for depression, we're looking at whether we can establish the cause for wearing the glasses.

(B) is out of scope. It's discussing what folks think about wearing glasses - this doesn't affect causation (and if you think it does, you've added in a whole lot of assumptions).

(C) is similar to (A) in that it tempts you with causation, but again, this is addressing why someone would be depressed, not why someone would wear the glasses.

(D) is funny! And perhaps tempting. It seems like a reason for wearing glasses, but the glasses could serve as a signal without that being the reason that the glasses are worn.
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion of this argument is causal in nature (“because” is the indicator): Depression = tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal, Glasses = glasses are worn. The answer choices are very interesting as they all relate to either the cause or effect, or both. Answer choices (A) and (C) are similar in that they both discuss what causes depression (the cause of the cause). But the author has made no assumption about what causes depression, only that depression causes a person to wear glasses. Therefore, both of these answers are incorrect. Similarly, answer choices (B) and (D) both discuss the effects of wearing glasses (the effects of the effect). Again, this is not a part of the author’s argument. Because answer choices (A), (B), (C), and (D) discuss issues that occur either “before” or “after” the causal relationship in the conclusion, they are incorrect. Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. Answer choice (E) is a Defender that eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed (Type D in the Assumptions and Causality discussion). Remember, if the glasses actually cause the wearer to be depressed, this scenario would hurt the argument, so the author assumes the possibility cannot exist. Note how tricky this answer could be, especially if you had not been exposed to the way the test makers think about causality and assumptions. With the right information, the answer can be identified as part of a larger pattern on the GMAT, and this allows you to solve the problem quickly and confidently. While it may take a bit of work to memorize the different assumptions inherent in causal arguments, the payoff is more than worth the effort.
_________________

souvik101990 i absolutely understand nothing what you said. Can you please elaborate explanation for option E?

Please explain. I marked "A" as the correct answer. I still don't get why is E right.

The stimulus states -

Wearing tinted eyeglasses (Cause)---->Prone to depression and hypochondria (Effect)

It can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal. (As given in the Stimulus)

Tendency to be depression/hypochondria(Cause)---->Wearing tinted eyeglasses (Effect)

For assumption question the correct Answer must ( According to PowerScore CR Bible)

1. Eliminates alternate cause of stated events 2. Shows , cause Occurs -----> Effect Occurs 3. Shows , cause doesn't Occur -----> Effect doesn't Occurs 4. Eliminates possibility that the stated relationship can be reversed 5. Shows data used to make casual statement are accurate / eliminates problem with data

Option (E) does just the same ( Eliminates possibility that the stated relationship can be reversed ) hence its the correct answer.
_________________

I do not think the actual exam will like this question because the argument structure is not easy to grasp.
conclusion: " such glasses are worn"
premise: "because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal."
All other sentences address only the premise.

E eliminates the reverse relationship: conclusion -> premise.

Hi. Am trying to practice elimination and for B, this is how i eliminated it:

1. this does not address the causal relationship.
2. the phrase "distancing themselves" is somehow related to
"Perhaps people whose relationship to the world is psychologically painful choose such glasses to reduce visual stimulation, which is perceived as irritating." .... and this the opinion of the author thus neither a premise nor a conclusion.

therefore, B is rejected.

am i correct?

Very good question and the word "Perhaps" served as the cue to the answer. Perhaps is a cue word to tell the readers that it is an assumption. And therefore Choice E rightly explains the sentence after Perhaps in the passage.

Abhishek009, nightblade354, egmat, GMATNinja

Hi,

According to what Abhishek quoted, doesn't option A help to eliminate alternate cause of the "wearing tinted glasses"? Why is A not a correct answer if it help to eliminate alternate cause?

Also, in the original argument, is "depression" considered as necessary or sufficient condition? Or both?

Thanks

Doctors in Britain have long suspected that patients who wear tinted eyeglasses are abnormally prone to depression and hypochondria. Psychological tests given there to hospital patients admitted for physical complaints like heart pain and digestive distress confirmed such a relationship. Perhaps people whose relationship to the world is psychologically painful choose such glasses to reduce visual stimulation, which is perceived as irritating. At any rate, it can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.


The conclusion of the argument is 'when a person wears tinted glasses, then that person has tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal'. How did the argument come to this conclusion ? Because, the argument has used two statements/premises stated in the argument. First one, Psychological tests confirmed, doctors suspicion, that patients wearing tinted glasses are prone to depression. Second one, perhaps ( or possibly) that if a person has psychologically painful relation to the world (this kind of description can be assumed to be depression) then he/she wears tinted glasses. Either case one or case two, the argument concludes that when a person wears tinted glasses, it is because he/she is prone to depression, in other words wearing tinted glasses doesn't make the wearer depressed. We need to assume this assumption (wearing tinted glasses doesn't make the wearer depressed) to make a general conclusion mentioned in the argument.

(A) Depression is not caused in some cases by an organic condition of the body.
The argument tries to prove using two cases that depressed people wear tinted glasses. We need to bring in new information such that the tinted glasses don't have any effect on the depression. Whereas, choice A states the cause of the depression in some cases that depression is not caused by organic condition of the body. It means, non-organic condition causes depression. So, we can say tinted glasses (depending on whether they are non-organic or not) may or may not cause depression. Since, many things we need to assume here, we can neglect this choice.

(B) Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people.
The argument is not concerned with opinions of the wearers, whether they want to distance themselves from others or not. So, it is kind of out of scope.

(C) Depression can have many causes, including actual conditions about which it is reasonable for anyone to be depressed.
The argument is not about many causes of the depression, so we can neglect this choice.

(D) For hypochondriacs wearing tinted glasses, the glasses serve as a visual signal to others that the wearer’s health is delicate.
Out of scope, since the argument doesn't talk about how others feel about the wearer's health condition.

(E) The tinting does not dim light to the eye enough to depress the wearer’s mood substantially.
This choice says that tint on the glasses doesn't depress. If we assume this, then we can safely make the conclusion made in the argument

Need a small clarification.
Considering the correlation/causation, we can go for option E.

However, expanding on Option B:
"Wearers do not think tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people" - which means, they only think of the tinted glasses as a means to hide their depression. Is this not a part of assumption?

Had the option B been -
"Wearers do not USE tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people" , which will also help the author assume that they only wear it when they are depressed.

Please explain the fault in my thought process?

Thanks.

Let's plug (B) to the reasoning. Now let's read it again.

Perhaps people whose relationship to the world is psychologically painful choose such glasses to reduce visual stimulation, which is perceived as irritating. Furthermore, Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people. At any rate, it can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.

How does "distancing themselves" relate to "tendency to be depressed" here? Does distancing cause depression and vice versa? The argument does not mention such a relationship.

Whether they think of tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people does not break the argument. So it might or might not be true. Hence, Incorrect.
_________________

Point of the argument / Conclusion: Patients who wear tinted eyeglasses are abnormally prone to depression and hypochondria.

(E) The tinting does not dim light to the eye enough to depress the wearer’s mood substantially.

This one is clearly the answer. This answer choice is basically stating that there is not a causal - effect relationship between the usage of tinted eyeglasses and depression + hypochondria, so by discarding any other relationship (causal - effect) this answer choice helps us to hold the correlation nature of the argument.

In other words, we just need to confirm the tendency/correlation between usage of lenses and depression and hypochondria not to state a causal - effect relationship.

Best.
_________________

I have a question about B.
So depression causes people to wear tinted glasses.
B eliminates another reason why people are wearing glasses. If you negate B, you will get people do so because they want to distance themselves from others. It slightly weakens the argument but doesn't break it.
I think B would be right if this is a strength question, not an assumption question; hence this underlying difference between B and E makes B inferrior to E.

Hi Experts Bunuel , souvik101990 GMATNinja , requesting help here.

I have been thinking about the PowerScore explanation and had a question. I choose B and E as contender for the following reasons:

argument structure: Hypo or Depression (Cause) ----> Glasses (Effect)
My views on each choice I selected:
Choice B: Distancing reasons X (not the cause ) ---> to wear Glasses (Effect) [ aren't we eliminating an extraneous explanation here ]

Choice E: Tinting (or say wearing glasses ) (Cause) ---> X depression (effect) [ eliminating the reverse structure ]

while choice E reverses the cause and eliminates an weakening point, I feel that choice B also eliminates an extraneous explanation that glasses are not worn for reason other than depression.

Would appreciate thoughts here. THanks

Hi there,

I'm by no means an expert but to the extent it's helpful, I'm sharing my rationale for choosing E over B. I took a page from GMATNinja 's book, where he emphasized understanding the logic and conclusion/argument over the mechanics of what a right answer should be. With all due respect to test prep companies, I think that higher level questions don't always fit perfectly into the strategies/rules we learn for what the right answer should look like.

At the core, an assumption is something without which the argument would make NO sense, i.e. the logic of the argument would completely fail. And so, the assumption should essentially strengthen the argument. The conclusion here is that the depression causes people to wear glasses. The reasoning for this conclusion is that "people who are depressed would want to reduce visual stimulation since it's irritating..."

With that in mind:

Option B), Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people. - the reasoning in the argument is not about distancing from people. It's about reducing visual stimuli. It's not completely off the reservation for us to think that distancing from people is natural in real life, but this is a trap which tempts us to think about real life logic and insert our own thoughts. As GMATNinja suggests, in CR we have to be extremely literal and not insert our own thoughts or opinions. Further, the argument rests on depression causing people to wear glasses. It has nothing to do wearing glasses to distance from other people.

Option E) The tinting does not dim light to the eye enough to depress the wearer’s mood substantially. - as you rightly noted in your post, this answer choice literally reverses the logic of the argument. If the tinting led to depression, then the author's whole argument falls apart. Hence I picked this option.

Hope it helped.

Hi Experts Bunuel , souvik101990 GMATNinja , requesting help here.

I have been thinking about the PowerScore explanation and had a question. I choose B and E as contender for the following reasons:

argument structure: Hypo or Depression (Cause) ----> Glasses (Effect)
My views on each choice I selected:
Choice B: Distancing reasons X (not the cause ) ---> to wear Glasses (Effect) [ aren't we eliminating an extraneous explanation here ]

Choice E: Tinting (or say wearing glasses ) (Cause) ---> X depression (effect) [ eliminating the reverse structure ]

while choice E reverses the cause and eliminates an weakening point, I feel that choice B also eliminates an extraneous explanation that glasses are not worn for reason other than depression.

Would appreciate thoughts here. THanks[/quote]


Hi there,

I'm by no means an expert but to the extent it's helpful, I'm sharing my rationale for choosing E over B. I took a page from GMATNinja 's book, where he emphasized understanding the logic and conclusion/argument over the mechanics of what a right answer should be. With all due respect to test prep companies, I think that higher level questions don't always fit perfectly into the strategies/rules we learn for what the right answer should look like.

At the core, an assumption is something without which the argument would make NO sense, i.e. the logic of the argument would completely fail. And so, the assumption should essentially strengthen the argument. The conclusion here is that the depression causes people to wear glasses. The reasoning for this conclusion is that "people who are depressed would want to reduce visual stimulation since it's irritating..."

With that in mind:

Option B), Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people. - the reasoning in the argument is not about distancing from people. It's about reducing visual stimuli. It's not completely off the reservation for us to think that distancing from people is natural in real life, but this is a trap which tempts us to think about real life logic and insert our own thoughts. As GMATNinja suggests, in CR we have to be extremely literal and not insert our own thoughts or opinions. Further, the argument rests on depression causing people to wear glasses. It has nothing to do wearing glasses to distance from other people.

Option E) The tinting does not dim light to the eye enough to depress the wearer’s mood substantially. - as you rightly noted in your post, this answer choice literally reverses the logic of the argument. If the tinting led to depression, then the author's whole argument falls apart. Hence I picked this option.

Hope it helped.[/quote]

Hi UserMaple5 : Thank you for the view. I still find something unclear in my mind and would appreciate if you would respond back.

For option B I agree that distancing is not the reason mentioned in the stimuli, but here is how I am thinking about the stimuli and the options B and E.

stimuli: Depression (cause) -------(motive: reduce irritation)---(leads to)-------- ----> Glasses (Effect) [ or say X ---leads to ---> Y]

option B: Motive of distancing from others (cause) ----- doesn't lead to ------> glasses (effect) [ Z --- doesn't lead to ----> Y]
Option E: Tinting effect of glasses (cause ) ---- doesn't lead to ------> depression (Effect) [ Y ----- doesn't lead to ------> X ]

I understand that option E falls within the "hey the relationship is not opposite" structure, but I feel that option B also lends itself to the "there's no third variable causing the effect" structure.
I see that the actual stimuli has a separate cause for the effect and an underlying motive, and the option B has motive itself as a cause, making it look like an incorrect answer choice in literal terms. But when we consider the motive of distancing as a variable or a cause (lets put aside the word motive, as doing so may confuse with the motive in the stimuli) that may have caused one to wear glasses, and if this were true (and Option E wasn't there) wouldn't it mean that we are eliminating a possibility that there's no extraneous factor that is causing people to wear glasses ? I personally chose E but I had to think about these two options for some time. Inviting your thoughts.

Hi there,

I'm by no means an expert but to the extent it's helpful, I'm sharing my rationale for choosing E over B. I took a page from GMATNinja 's book, where he emphasized understanding the logic and conclusion/argument over the mechanics of what a right answer should be. With all due respect to test prep companies, I think that higher level questions don't always fit perfectly into the strategies/rules we learn for what the right answer should look like.

At the core, an assumption is something without which the argument would make NO sense, i.e. the logic of the argument would completely fail. And so, the assumption should essentially strengthen the argument. The conclusion here is that the depression causes people to wear glasses. The reasoning for this conclusion is that "people who are depressed would want to reduce visual stimulation since it's irritating..."

With that in mind:

Option B), Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people. - the reasoning in the argument is not about distancing from people. It's about reducing visual stimuli. It's not completely off the reservation for us to think that distancing from people is natural in real life, but this is a trap which tempts us to think about real life logic and insert our own thoughts. As GMATNinja suggests, in CR we have to be extremely literal and not insert our own thoughts or opinions. Further, the argument rests on depression causing people to wear glasses. It has nothing to do wearing glasses to distance from other people.

Option E) The tinting does not dim light to the eye enough to depress the wearer’s mood substantially. - as you rightly noted in your post, this answer choice literally reverses the logic of the argument. If the tinting led to depression, then the author's whole argument falls apart. Hence I picked this option.

Hope it helped.[/quote]

Hi UserMaple5 : Thank you for the view. I still find something unclear in my mind and would appreciate if you would respond back.

For option B I agree that distancing is not the reason mentioned in the stimuli, but here is how I am thinking about the stimuli and the options B and E.

stimuli: Depression (cause) -------(motive: reduce irritation)---(leads to)-------- ----> Glasses (Effect) [ or say X ---leads to ---> Y]

option B: Motive of distancing from others (cause) ----- doesn't lead to ------> glasses (effect) [ Z --- doesn't lead to ----> Y]
Option E: Tinting effect of glasses (cause ) ---- doesn't lead to ------> depression (Effect) [ Y ----- doesn't lead to ------> X ]

I understand that option E falls within the "hey the relationship is not opposite" structure, but I feel that option B also lends itself to the "there's no third variable causing the effect" structure.
I see that the actual stimuli has a separate cause for the effect and an underlying motive, and the option B has motive itself as a cause, making it look like an incorrect answer choice in literal terms. But when we consider the motive of distancing as a variable or a cause (lets put aside the word motive, as doing so may confuse with the motive in the stimuli) that may have caused one to wear glasses, and if this were true (and Option E wasn't there) wouldn't it mean that we are eliminating a possibility that there's no extraneous factor that is causing people to wear glasses ? I personally chose E but I had to think about these two options for some time. Inviting your thoughts.[/quote]

--------

Hi there,

I think you're misunderstanding cause to be the same as motive.

Let's take another example. Let's say I believe listening to music will help me reduce stress in order to focus on my studies.

Here listening to music will (CAUSE) me to Reduce stress (EFFECT) which is something I want to do in order to focus on my studies ( MOTIVE). Notice that the cause, effect and motive are unique in this instance.

Going back to option B:

You noted that in option B: Motive of distancing from others (cause) ----- doesn't lead to ------> glasses (effect) [ Z --- doesn't lead to ----> Y]

I would disagree with your cause and effect classification here. The option says that "Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people". The fact that glasses are being used as a means to something, then that something would be the ultimate motive. The motive in option B is the distancing and glasses is the way that they achieve (or in this case, don't achieve) that motive. The glasses is not the effect.

But the most important thing here I think is that you are inserting your own assumption that distancing has anything to do with depression. You would have to make several extraneous assumptions to get to that point in the argument. In CR, we can't add our own assumptions, even if they are based on real life. We have to operate within the constraints of the argument.

This question is discussed in other LSAT forums too, in case it's helpful for you: https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?t=14021

Kudos please if this was helpful!

Thanks

Hi UserMaple5 : Thank you for the view. I still find something unclear in my mind and would appreciate if you would respond back.

For option B I agree that distancing is not the reason mentioned in the stimuli, but here is how I am thinking about the stimuli and the options B and E.

stimuli: Depression (cause) -------(motive: reduce irritation)---(leads to)-------- ----> Glasses (Effect) [ or say X ---leads to ---> Y]

option B: Motive of distancing from others (cause) ----- doesn't lead to ------> glasses (effect) [ Z --- doesn't lead to ----> Y]
Option E: Tinting effect of glasses (cause ) ---- doesn't lead to ------> depression (Effect) [ Y ----- doesn't lead to ------> X ]

I understand that option E falls within the "hey the relationship is not opposite" structure, but I feel that option B also lends itself to the "there's no third variable causing the effect" structure.
I see that the actual stimuli has a separate cause for the effect and an underlying motive, and the option B has motive itself as a cause, making it look like an incorrect answer choice in literal terms. But when we consider the motive of distancing as a variable or a cause (lets put aside the word motive, as doing so may confuse with the motive in the stimuli) that may have caused one to wear glasses, and if this were true (and Option E wasn't there) wouldn't it mean that we are eliminating a possibility that there's no extraneous factor that is causing people to wear glasses ? I personally chose E but I had to think about these two options for some time. Inviting your thoughts.[/quote]

--------

Hi there,

I think you're misunderstanding cause to be the same as motive.

Let's take another example. Let's say I believe listening to music will help me reduce stress in order to focus on my studies.

Here listening to music will (CAUSE) me to Reduce stress (EFFECT) which is something I want to do in order to focus on my studies ( MOTIVE). Notice that the cause, effect and motive are unique in this instance.

Going back to option B:

You noted that in option B: Motive of distancing from others (cause) ----- doesn't lead to ------> glasses (effect) [ Z --- doesn't lead to ----> Y]

I would disagree with your cause and effect classification here. The option says that "Wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people". The fact that glasses are being used as a means to something, then that something would be the ultimate motive. The motive in option B is the distancing and glasses is the way that they achieve (or in this case, don't achieve) that motive. The glasses is not the effect.

But the most important thing here I think is that you are inserting your own assumption that distancing has anything to do with depression. You would have to make several extraneous assumptions to get to that point in the argument. In CR, we can't add our own assumptions, even if they are based on real life. We have to operate within the constraints of the argument.

This question is discussed in other LSAT forums too, in case it's helpful for you: https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?t=14021

Kudos please if this was helpful!

Thanks[/quote]


Hi UserMaple5, I see the point now. Although I had no assumption connecting motive and depression, I can see the error in a different way. So the option says people wearers do not think of the tinted glasses as a means of distancing themselves from other people. The option talks about wearers and their thought process. My structure was: motive do not lead to glasses, meaning that motive do not lead to wearing of glasses. This is nowhere what the option was telling. The options says that i) there are wearers, and that the wearers just think about the glass in their own way. No connection with depression presented.

Thanks for forwarding stimulating thoughts. Appreciate it.