53 LR Two Question 9
- « 53 LR Two Question 8
- 1513 of 3815
- 53 LR Two Question 10 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
Yes! That's generally true. But think about what we've got in this argument—we've already been told that regular drinkers do have a higher risk of kidney damage. So say non-drinkers have a 5% chance, and drinkers have a 15% chance. Now, you see how (D) doesn't harm our argument, right?
I think I might be conflating a couple of things, which is why I am having trouble understanding why D is wrong. In the stimulus, the conclusion is "Regular consumption of this tea, therefore, can result in a heightened risk of kidney damage." Answer choice D) "Most people who regularly drink camellia tea do not develop kidney damage". The stimulus is discussing the inherent risk associated with drinking this tea, not the amount of people who do develop kidney problems as a result. I think answer choice E) weakens the argument because it alludes to the possibility that there is an alternative cause which heightens the risk of kidney damage and makes it less likely that the tea is the primary cause. Is my analysis / line of thinking correct ?
Hm. often, a concrete example makes things clearer, but I can see that perhaps additional expansion of my original example is in order:
Imagine that non-tea-drinkers have a 5% chance of kidney damage, and regular tea drinkers have a 15% chance. This comports with the evidence of the passage. If this is true, then (D) is not useful to us—it doesn't matter whether a majority of tea drinkers don't get damage. Drinking the tea still triples your risk of damage!
Is that clearer?