Q17 - Members of the Amazonian Akabe

[skapur777]

Confused by this question, again this is an example of getting the answer right but having no idea why it is!

We are attacking the idea that they only drink small amounts of this tea because it is very high in caffeine and thus would inhibit their ability to carry out their daily tasks.

A- incorrect because the small amount they drink might be more than enough to satiate their need for such nutrients...not to mention I don't see how this attacks the stimulus
B- irrelevant, why does this matter? They might drink more or they might drink less, we have no idea...
C- keep as answer choice
D- no idea how this matters
E- irrelevant as well...we are attacking the hypothesis that they drink a little in the morning...

I ended up picking C because it attacks the idea that CAFFEINE is why they don't drink it...instead it is because it is a narcotic.

But isn't caffeine a narcotic? I'm confused!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

This problem is a subtle example of a causation flaw --

For questions that ask you for a flaw in the reasoning, as this one does, causation is the most common type of conclusion that is reached, and the evidence the author presents will not be enough to justify the causal conclusion.

For this argument -- the conclusion is that the anthropologists' hypothesis: Akabe only drink a little of their tea because it has a lot of caffeine. What's the reasoning given? Well, we know the tea has a lot of caffeine.

Notice that what we have as evidence is correlation -- two things that happen to happen at the same time/same place/same person, etc --

1) these people don't drink a lot of the tea
2) the tea has a lot of caffeine

Is this enough to prove that they don't drink a lot of the tea because of the amount of caffeine? No - in fact, correlation is NEVER enough to prove causation.

What we want is an answer that proves that there is no causal connection between the elements, or suggests another cause. (C) does exactly that -- it provides another possible reason why the people don't drink a lot of the drink -- it contains a narcotic.

BTW -- in reference to your other q -- in colloquial terms "narcotic" is used often for "illegal substances," which caffeine is not, and in traditional terms, a "narcotic" is a drug that dulls your senses and helps put you to sleep (I'm guessing this is the meaning they are using here) -- which caffeine is not. The LSAT loves to play with words that are very similar in meaning or overlap in meaning, so you are wise to be careful here (I would definitely, at first, wonder if caffeine can be categorized as a narcotic).

Hope that helps, and please follow up if you have any questions!

[gotomedschool]

what I dont get is how can something have extraoridinary caffine content & at the same time be a narcotic?


Is that the point here? the scientists hypothesize it has way to much caffeine and it would give them the jitters hence thats why they dont drink it in the morning but the reality is that its not the caffine, its because it would make them feel drowsy?


It just seems weird to me that something can be high in caffine and be a narcotic at the same time.

[skapur777]

Hahahha, that's the LSAT for you. It doesn't exactly make sense in real-world terms but the whole point is you just need to affect the argument being presented to you. The author says that they don't drink the tea due to high caffeine. They are making a causal link between the high amount of caffeine and their decision not to drink the tea before they start their day.

And, as a classic LSAT answer, the answer choice gives another possible cause for them not drinking the tea: it has a narcotic.

[alexg89]

I'd like some opinions on the differences in answer choices A and C.

I understand what Mike Kim was saying about there being a causation error but I don't really see a clear enough difference between these two answer choices.

We are asked to pick an answer that calls into question his explanation on why they drink small amounts.

A: If they needed the nutrients then that would explain why they would drink it and this provides a different explanation than the one supplied by the anthropologist. They may only drink it in small amounts for various reasons like it being valuable resource or if its toxic in large quantities.

C: If the tea has a narcotic in it then it would also explain why they would drink it and this provides a different explanation than the one supplied by the anthropologist. Although people don't always consume small amounts of narcotics and if they are consuming this on a regular basis it would seem that they would need increasing amounts of it be stay effective, like any narcotic.

Both could explain a different reason and both require assumptions to be made about it being consumed in small quantities. Therefore I find this to be a bad question.

[inesa909]

I chose B for this question. I don't quite understand why it would be irrelevant. It seems that this would discredit the conclusion that the Akabe's reason for not drinking of it in the morning because of the high amount of caffeine, since they would still be able to drink it in the evening.

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

What an annoying question. I'm with you that (C) totally sucks...but it doesn't suck as much as the others. Oh, LSAT. Why do you do this to us.

To answer the specific questions broached here:

(A) Be careful. The conclusion is not "The Akabe drink the tea for caffeine." If it were, then answer choice (A) would weaken that conclusion, because they might be drinking the tea for nutrients, not caffeine. The conclusion is "The Akabe only drink a little bit of tea in the morning because it has too much caffeine in it." In this case, (A) simply doesn't make sense with the FACTS given. If this were true, the Akabe would drink more of the tea, but they don't. We still haven't weakened the argument that the reason they don't drink more is the caffeine content.

(B) This doesn't weaken the argument at all. Remember, this argument isn't about getting to sleep; it's about being "surefooted." It makes plenty of sense for the Akabe to drink the tea at night, because their "daily tasks" are done. So we still don't know if the reason they don't drink more in the morning is because the caffeine would make them jumpy.

Hope that helps!

-t

[amandarruff]

I chose B as well. Some people can drink Caffeine well into the night not have effects of jittery etc. I personally drink coffee before bed and sleep like soundly. I would assume they don't drink Caffeine during the day because of it's diuretic affect (thus becoming dehydrated). Example I love working in the garden in the hot summer months and being outside and I love taste of sun-tea, but I drink little of it during the day while I work, because it is dehydrating not a good effect while working ( in hot or cold whether might I add). So I might drink a big glass of it with dinner at 7pm. My thought is that if they are drinking it at night then they are not becoming dehydrated while working and are drinking in their leisure. I understand the argument behind the narcotics, my guess is that the test makers didn't expect a test taker to know that information.

[WaltGrace1983]

I chose B as well...I would assume they don't drink Caffeine during the day because of it's diuretic affect (thus becoming dehydrated)...My thought is that if they are drinking it at night then they are not becoming dehydrated while working and are drinking in their leisure. I understand the argument behind the narcotics, my guess is that the test makers didn't expect a test taker to know that information.

Careful not to put in your own assumptions! We know nothing about these people except that (1) they drink a special kind of tea; (2) they only drink that tea in small amounts in the morning; and (3) tea is high in caffeine. Go back to the core!

At dawn they drink the tea in small amounts
+
Tea is high in caffeine
→
Don't drink more because of the high caffeine that would destroy their sure-footedness for their tasks

As Mike said, we have a correlation/causation issue here. In order to weaken this argument we can (1) give an alternate explanation, i.e. that they don't drink it for another reason; (2) show that the explanation isn't sufficient - maybe their tasks don't require sure-footedness or maybe they only drink it when their tasks don't require sure-footedness

The problem with (B) is that it doesn't help us know anything about what is going on in the morning, the period of time we are most concerned about. Let's say the Akabe do drink the tea in the evening after work. How does this show that the explanation isn't a good one? It really doesn't. I personally cannot figure out how it would be so.

What you said in the bolded is really interesting and, with a little bit of extra stuff, that could have been a correct answer perhaps. You would to show why dehydration would be bad for working in order to make it a decent answer. However, that is more along the lines of what you should be thinking. I.e., think "is there any other explanation that the author is forgetting?" (C) provides this other explanation - it is a narcotic! What do narcotics do? They cause you to be less surefooted. What do the Akabe need? Surefootedness.

In my opinion, (A) would actually strengthen. If it was full of nutrients, why wouldn't the Akabe be drinking it?! The conclusion at least provides a potential reason why they wouldn't.

(D) and (E) don't really do much for me.