Bunuel
Researcher: Hard water contains more calcium and magnesium than soft water contains. Thus, those who drink mostly soft water incur an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension, for people being treated for these conditions tend to have lower levels of magnesium in their blood.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the researcher’s argument?
(A) Magnesium deficiency is not uncommon, even in relatively prosperous countries with an otherwise generally adequate diet.
(B) Magnesium is needed to prevent sodium from increasing blood pressure.
(C) As people age, their ability to metabolize magnesium deteriorates.
(D) The ingestion of magnesium supplements inhibits the effectiveness of many medicines used to treat high blood pressure and heart disease.
(E) Compounds commonly used to treat hypertension and heart disease diminish the body’s capacity to absorb and retain magnesium.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The first premise is the first sentence: Hard water contains more calcium and magnesium than soft water. The second premise is found in the last two lines: People being treated for heart disease, stroke and hypertension tend to have lower levels of magnesium in their blood. The conclusion is: Those who drink mostly soft water incur an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension.
Does this really add up? I don’t think so. This seems to be a correlation-therefore-causation flaw. The premises indicate that there is a correlation between low blood magnesium and being treated for certain diseases. But this doesn’t mean that low blood magnesium
causes certain diseases. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the diseases cause low blood magnesium, or that some third factor (living near a power plant?) causes both low blood magnesium and the diseases. This logic simply doesn’t stand up. I’m pissed. And that’s always a good thing on the Logical Reasoning.
The question asks us to undermine, the researcher’s argument. I’ve already been doing that. Let’s see what we’ve got in the answer choices.
A) Just because magnesium deficiency is not uncommon does not mean that it doesn’t cause diseases. This isn’t it.
B) This, if true, might
strengthen the argument because it indicates how low blood magnesium might cause diseases. We’re looking for a weakener, so this is out.
C) At first I thought age was irrelevant, but then I thought that maybe age is the third factor that causes the apparent correlation. If age causes low blood magnesium, and age causes diseases, then this could be a weakener. My only problem here is that I’m not sure if a bad metabolism would lead to low blood magnesium or
high blood magnesium. Which means this answer could strengthen or weaken. Hmm. I could pick this if D and E are both bad, but I’m definitely hoping for something better.
D) This just jumbles all the concepts up together and I’m not sure what it would mean, logically. If magnesium supplements inhibit your heart medicine, then you’ve already
got heart disease. So this is probably irrelevant.
E) I think this is it. This is one of our predictions, right? We said, “The diseases cause low blood magnesium,” which could happen via the medications that you have to take for the diseases, right? If this is true, then it indicates that the correlation has a
reversed cause and effect from what the argument assumed. So this is a pretty devastating weakener. Reversal of cause and effect is also a very common correct answer on the LSAT.
Let’s go with E.