Breaking the argument down into a short summary.
Back Pain = BP, C = Bulging/Slipped Disks, P = The group of people examined.
1. a certain group P.
2. Common Belief -
C -->
BP.
3. After examining, 1/2 of P had C.
C Since
1/2 of P --> C ---> C -->No BPNote here that the argument is open to the possibility of alternate factors for the condition in order to state that
C is not the factor of
BP.
Now that understanding the argument is out of the way, let's look at the answer choices.
Quote:
A. A factor (C) that need not be present for the effect to arise may still be sufficient to produce the effect (BP)
Does the argument really fail to consider this? This talks about the sufficiency of the factor to cause the condition. Can one particular factor alone be enough to cause the effect? even in the absence of other factors that obviously could cause the condition? Once you try to examine this deeply, you'll arrive nowhere. Such options are definitely wrong.
OUTQuote:
B. The factor that's not sufficient to cause an effect alone may still be partly responsible for the effect sometimes.
The factor - C isn't sufficient alone. But, could be one of the reasons to cause BP sometimes.
Yes! We know from the conclusion that all people who have back pain indefinitely have bulging/slipped discs, which were thought to be the causes of the condition in the first place. Now, when a sample of people who don't have backpain are examined and half of them, a substantial amount, are found to have Bulging/Slipped disks, we should be able to understand that bulging discs isn't the only cause. The Argument without even considering this however, goes on to conclude that the common view was wrong and bulging discs isn't a cause at all. It cannot explain the existence of these discs in the people who are affected by the condition. Hence, we can comprehend that among the other possible causes, bulging discs could be a cause too.
CORRECTQuote:
C. An effect that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomenon might not occur when that phenomenon is present.
The effect here is nothing but
C, and the phenomenon is
BP.
We know that C can exist when there is BP from the argument itself.
OUTQuote:
D. A characteristic found in half of a given sample of the population might not occur in half of the entire population.
This isn't a flaw. The Characteristic =
C.
C might not happen to the other half. We know this.
OUTQuote:
E. A factor that does not bring about a certain effect may nonetheless be more likely to be present when the effect occurs than when the effect does not occur.
incidence of
C when
BP happens
> incidence of
C BP doesn't happen. This is a comparison of when
BP does and doesn't happen.. Well, we know from the argument that all
BP affected people have
C and half of the examined bunch have
C. The argument doesn't fail to state this.
OUTIf you're patient enough to read through, you'll be more than able to understand. This is a really HARD LSAT question so don't worry, you won't come across such a gnarly question.
However, I recommend that the moderators or
Hovkial post the OE here for a better solution.
____________________________
If this was useful, click the
Kudos button. Makes my day.