PrepTest 132

Incorrect. A specific number doesn't need to be established, so this isn't a flaw. Additionally, the stimulus is more concerned with the symptoms than the underlying diseases.

Incorrect. Nutritional factors could explain the variation that the stimulus discusses, as they could be the result of an uneven distribution of organic factors, so the argument doesn't ignore this possibility.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Organic factors affect mental illness symptoms. Countries vary greatly in these symptoms, so countries must vary greatly in these organic factors.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features causality, which would normally establish a correlation/causation flaw. However, in this case, there's a causal premise establishing that organic factors do, in fact, have an effect on mental health symptoms, so we have to look elsewhere for the flaw.

Looking at the argument, we have a phenomenon noted—countries have different mental illness symptoms—and an explanation—they have different organic factors. We've seen that this structure—phenomenon/explanation—is important on the LSAT, and this one is also comparative—one difference explains another. When an argument concludes an explanation, it's generally flawed in that it doesn't consider alternative explanations. When an argument is reliant on two things being different to explain a difference, it often neglects to consider another potential difference. Both roads lead to the same place—the correct answer should highlight that there may be another explanation for the phenomenon, so any answer that highlights another relevant difference between countries that can explain why they have different mental health symptoms will highlight the flaw in this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up an alternative factor in the symptoms of mental illness—it's not organic factors, it's cultural ones. In raising an alternative possible explanation to the one concluded in the stimulus, this answer correctly highlights an error in the argument's reasoning.

Key Takeaway:
Causal conclusions can be backed up by causal premises, so a causal premise usually prevents there from being a correlation/causation flaw. However, when that's the case, the correct answer will frequently bring up an alternative potential cause or explanation that could also factor into the explanation.

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses "[m]any" symptoms of mental illness are affected by a "deficiency" in a brain compound, so it's not assuming that any change in brain chemistry is related to mental conditions.

Incorrect. While the stimulus does discuss organic factors as "affect[ing]" mental symptoms, it never states that these are the only factors. They could build on symptoms created by non-physical phenomena.