Q2 - a certain strain of bacteria was found

[seychelles1718]

I initially picked B but after review I can see E supports the causal relationship of the argument by showing no effect ----> no cause
I picked B because for some reason I was mistaken to think that the ulcer should be the only effect of bacteria strain in the stomach. But now I see that B is wrong because whether or not any other serious health problems could happen after ingestion of bacteria strain has no bearing on the causal relationship between bacteria and ulcer.

Is my reasoning correct?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Hi, you accidentally posted this as Q2, but it's really Q3.

Can you read the pre-existing thread and see if that answers your question? If not, just us know.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... tml#p25518

[annalidia.kessler]

The question address an argument between a physicist and a chemist. The physicist simply states that the requirements for low temperature nuclear fusion couldn't have been met by chemists, because their measurements and calculations are inaccurate. The chemist responds by mocking him and says he's simply jealous that chemists might have solved a problem that physicists couldn't solve.
The flaw of the chemist's argument is that he fails to address the claim proposed by the physicist; he simply avoids it altogether. This is seen in answer choice (D).
I confess I initially picked answer choice (B) while foolishly thinking that because the chemist failed to prove that perfect measurements are possible, he committed the largest flaw. Not so much! Perfect calculations are not addressed by the physicist who states that the opposing party's calculations are inaccurate. Does that mean they need to be perfect? No. Maybe nuclear fusion doesn't require them to be perfect. Regardless, the word "perfect" never comes into play in the argument.