Q4 - An ingredient in marijuana known

[wickedcady]

Can someone please explain to me why B is the correct answer? I am unsure how the carcinogenic effect of THC being neutralized can help with weakening the argument that marijuana does not cause cancer (or that the inactivated herpesvirus canNOT convert healthy cells into cancer cells).

Thanks in advance for all those who help.

[noah]

You might be misreading the argument - the conclusion is that THC does cause cancer.

Let's use this problem as a chance to review the "stance" we should have on Assumption Family questions: read like a debater. The core of this argument is this:

THC inactivates h.virus, which can turn cells cancerous --> THC can cause cancer.

(you could write this out more formally, showing the conditional relationship in the premise, but there's really no need)

Since this is a weaken question, we know there's an assumption here - so let's debate the conclusion while accepting the premises (i.e., read like a debater): "Sure, THC can do all that, but will it cause cancer? Maybe something else stops the cancer from forming. Maybe h.virus cancer cells always die immediately."

(B) provides a reason that the THC might not actually cause cancer.

(A) strengthens the argument.

(C) strengthens the argument - it supports the idea that THC can cause cancer!

(D) is out of scope. Who cares about modified THC? Give us the pure stuff!

(E) is out of scope. Even if THC can help alleviate side effects, it might still cause cancer.

[sumukh09]

More detail on why E is incorrect?

I chose E for this because I thought if marijuana is being recommended for cancer patients who don't have herpesvirus then that might weaken the claim that marijuana can cause cancer. I think something that I overlooked was that the patients already have cancer, although I'm not sure if that plays a role in why E is incorrect. Further, why would something be recommended for something if that something could cause the very thing it is being recommended for?

I had B as a contender but didn't choose it because it says other ingredients in marijuana "could" neutralize the carcinogenic effect of THC. Point being, it "could" also not neutralize the effects of THC and so would still inactivate the herpesvirus and thus convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

[teachers]

More detail on why E is incorrect?

I chose E for this because I thought if marijuana is being recommended for cancer patients who don't have herpesvirus then that might weaken the claim that marijuana can cause cancer. I think something that I overlooked was that the patients already have cancer, although I'm not sure if that plays a role in why E is incorrect. Further, why would something be recommended for something if that something could cause the very thing it is being recommended for?

(E) refers to folks that are free of the herpes virus - so there not in danger of having the virus inactivated. And, remember that we're only trying to prove the argument that marijuana use can cause cancer -- it's not a problem if a certain group is not included.

I had B as a contender but didn't choose it because it says other ingredients in marijuana "could" neutralize the carcinogenic effect of THC. Point being, it "could" also not neutralize the effects of THC and so would still inactivate the herpesvirus and thus convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

We just need to "unhook" the conclusion from the premise. If (B) were true, could we still say with certainty that marijuana can cause cancer? No - maybe it never does because of the other cancer-blocking ingredients.

That clear it up?

[sumukh09]

Thanks for the explanation. It kind of clears it up "” the part about the people not having herpesvirus in a/c E made a lot of sense.

Although I still don't really like B as an answer. B still allows for the possibility that the patients can get cancer by using marijuana. The answer choice itself concedes this as it refers to the effect as "carcinogenic." Carcinogenic by definition is something that has the potential to cause cancer. The conclusion says the use of marijuana can cause cancer and not "will cause cancer." If we accept B to be true, then this does not conflict with the conclusion as they both use probable language ie) "can" and "could". If it had said "will" then B would have been the obvious choice.

Am I still missing something? And thanks for the help!

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the explanation. It kind of clears it up "” the part about the people not having herpesvirus in a/c E made a lot of sense.

Although I still don't really like B as an answer. B still allows for the possibility that the patients can get cancer by using marijuana. The answer choice itself concedes this as it refers to the effect as "carcinogenic." Carcinogenic by definition is something that has the potential to cause cancer. The conclusion says the use of marijuana can cause cancer and not "will cause cancer." If we accept B to be true, then this does not conflict with the conclusion as they both use probable language ie) "can" and "could". If it had said "will" then B would have been the obvious choice.

Am I still missing something? And thanks for the help!

I think your explanation is good! (B) is definitely weak. However, the conclusion is also weak. Therefore, we shouldn't worry too much.

I absolutely thought (E) was tempting but it was wrong because we are talking about cancer patients that DO NOT have herpesvirus. The argument says the following: (Marijuana → THC → Inactivate Herpesviruses → Carcinogenic). While I don't really understand how "inactivating herpesviruses" can cause cancer - I am going to try to focus on not trying to understand what doesn't need to be understood. The point is that there is a disconnect between THC and marijuana. Sure, marijuana has THC but does that mean that marijuana causes cancer? Maybe not! Maybe the THC in marijuana ceases its existence when used (smoked).

(B) weakens the argument because it shows that marijuana (as a whole entity) can neutralize the THC. If this occurs, then we have less reason to believe that marijuana (as a whole entity) can cause cancer. THC can cause cancer - but, according to (B) - maybe not marijuana.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

It's still not exactly clear to me why (D) is wrong. I'm not sure it is wrong because it discusses a subset of THC (modified THC).

To me (D) was tempting because If modified THC prevents herpes then it cannot inactivate and as a consequence cause cancer. Someone, please explain why I'm wrong.

Edit: Wow, I'm so dense haha. I think I know why (D) is wrong.
First reason: It mentions modified THC which isn't even mentioned in the stimulus
Second reason: It mentions injecting the modified THC into medications to prevent herpes which is utterly out of scope. I mean who the fuck cares if modified THC is being injected into medications. Is it being injected into marijuana? We have no clue. Perhaps the modified THC is only used in medications, while marijuana just uses the regular HTC. We can eliminate this and move on. I wasn't doing a good job of applying this answer choice to the core to see why it was such an abhorrent answer choice.

[tommywallach]

Nice catch!

-t

P.S. No one here is dense.