PrepTest 126

Incorrect. Recovery from heart disease is out of scope since the argument limits itself to discussing the development of the disease.

Incorrect. This answer can feel as if it weakens the argument by reversing the causality. However, there's a key issue with it—it doesn't actually establish that these medications cause people to be quick to anger. It just states that it affects the moods of those who use it. Does it enhance emotions that are already there? Dull them? Cause people to cry in response to any emotion they feel? This answer isn't specific enough for us to analyze the actual impact on the argument, so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. It's established in the stimulus that those with permanently high blood pressure are especially likely to have heart disease. If we grab two subsets of that group—one that is tranquil, and another that is quick to anger—and establish that one is unlikely to develop heart disease, then, statistically, the other group would be more likely to be in the heart disease group, and the factor differentiating the groups is more likely to be the cause. That's a long way of saying that, if anything, this answer strengthens that causal relationship.

Incorrect. Another tempting answer in the vein of (B)! However, much like (B), there's a key shift here. While frustration might lead to anger, they are two distinct emotions. Being frustrated is neither sufficient nor necessary for being angry, and vice versa, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Well-known belief - Anger causes temporary blood pressure spikes
Study - Those easily angered are "more likely" to have permanently high blood pressure
Well-known belief 2 - Those with permanently high blood pressure are "especially likely" to have heart disease
Conclusion - Psychological factors (read: anger) can cause heart disease

Answer Anticipation:
This is a very interesting question, as it shows how the LSAT will take common trends that can lead to rules of thumb and then "mess" with them to increase the difficulty in a question.

Here, we have a Weaken question. This question type frequently features a correlation/causation flaw, so we should be on the lookout for it. When we see the causal conclusion, we should immediately check for correlative premises, as they're also necessary for this flaw to be present. After all, a causal conclusion can be validly supported by causal premises.

And this is where this question gets interesting. There is a causal premise—the opening line establishes that anger "often induces" a spike in blood pressure. "Induce" is an inherently causal word, so we do have a causal premise that relates psychological factors (anger) to high blood pressure.

However, this isn't the causal relationship that the argument relies on in reaching the conclusion. The supposed causal relationship in the conclusion goes something like this: Being easily angered causes permanent high blood pressure, which causes heart disease. There's a difference between having temporary high blood pressure, and having permanently high blood pressure, just like there's a big difference between being knocked unconscious temporarily and being in a coma permanently.

Whenever the Psychologist discusses the relationships that the conclusion relies on, she uses correlative language. Those who are easily angered are "more likely" to have permanently high blood pressure—correlation, not causation. Those with permanently high blood pressure are "especially likely" to have heart disease—correlation, not causation.

So the specific relationships that are related to the causal conclusion are correlations, and the one that isn't related to it is the only causal premise. Therefore, there is a correlation/causation flaw here, and we can weaken it using the common weakeners:
(1) ID an alternative cause (a disease that makes one quick to anger and have high blood pressure)
(2) Counterexamples (unlikely here, as the correlations are increased likelihoods, which leave open the room for many or even most people with the supposed cause to lack the effect)
(3) Reversed causality (that makes sense here—maybe high blood pressure makes you a more angry person)

Answer Explanation:
This answer identifies an alternative cause of the correlated phenomenon. It's not that anger (psychological factors) causes high blood pressure and thus heart disease, but rather that the physiological factors (note the shift there from psychological) that cause permanently high blood pressure also cause people to be quick to anger (the psychological factors).

Key Takeaway:
Causal premises can support causal conclusions, but they have to relate the supposed cause and effect together. If there is a mix of causal and correlative premises in a stimulus, there can still be a correlation/causation flaw as long as the causal premises don't directly relate to/establish the causal relationship in the conclusion.