78 LR Two Question 21
- « 78 LR Two Question 20
- 3026 of 3815
- 78 LR Two Question 22 »
Comments
im confused..isn't saying they have no more iron in their diets YET are predisposed to it bc genetics affirming an ALT cause, i.e. weakening the argument???
No. It's eliminating the possibility that a genetic predisposition* is causing the disease.
*Ugh. An earlier version of this response incorrectly said (A) ruled out the dietary factor. (A) in fact rules out genetic predisposition as a factor within our "iron eating" group. That group does have more Parkinson's, but (according to (A)) doesn't have a genetic predisposition. This makes it more likely that it's the iron-eating that causes Parkinson's in that group.
I still don´t see it. If it is not the iron in their diets but their genetic predisposition, doesn´t that favor the genetic cause and not the iron? Thank you.
(First, your question came in response to an earlier, and incorrect (sorry, everybody!) version of my comment above. The corrected comment may itself solve your dilemma. If not, read on).
From our argument, we know one correlation: people with iron-rich diets have more Parkinson's than people without iron-rich diets.
For that correlation to imply a causal relationship (here, as always!) we must assume there's not some other cause.
(A) tells us that the people with the iron-rich diets who get Parkinson's aren't getting it because of a genetic predisposition.
This is because according to (A), the people with the iron-rich diets are not people with genetic predispositions for the disease.
So if the irony dieters do get Parkinson's, but not because of a genetic predisposition, then it may be because of the iron in their diets.
Clearer?