Q9 - Someone who gets sick

[syr1990]

I see why C is a good answer, but why is E wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So how does answer choice (E) relate to the explanation (children develop aversions to food because they had food poisoning)? If we were to say that children are more likely to refuse unfamiliar food, would children be more or less likely to try something that might make the sick? It would make them less likely to eat something that makes them sick. So why would the explanation of food poisoning explain an aversion?

Answer choice (C) makes them more likely to get sick and so that would support the explanation of food poisoning.

Incorrect Answers

(A) undermines the explanation of food poisoning being the culprit that led to the aversion of foods in children.
(B) is irrelevant. Who cares whether children are likely to see such a connection?
(D) is irrelevant because it doesn't tell us if children are more likely to actually get sick in the first place.
(E) undermines the explanation because it makes children less likely to get food poisoning.

[yiwoo0216]

Wouldn't A support the explanation because in the absence of distinctive flavors, the children can still exhibit the phenomenon because out of all the non-distinctive flavors, they will apply the aversion to what is perceivably most distinctive of them ? (thereby strengthening the causal relationship?)

C seems overly broad because the stimulus specifies "someone who gets sick from eating a meal" (not necessarily the food causing sickness), while the answer (C) only mentions that children become sick more often (not specifying that it is actually from a meal)

I would appreciate any input please and thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Wouldn't A support the explanation because in the absence of distinctive flavors, the children can still exhibit the phenomenon because out of all the non-distinctive flavors, they will apply the aversion to what is perceivably most distinctive of them ? (thereby strengthening the causal relationship?)

Remember to keep in mind the phenomenon we're trying to explain--why is it that children are especially likely to develop an aversion to some foods? The argument offers the explanation that it's the correlation with distinctive flavors and getting sick. The problem with answer choice (A) is that according to it, children are not very likely to get distinctive flavors in their food. Furthermore it doesn't address the children getting sick. In the absence of both factors, how could this support the notion that it's the correlation between distinctive flavors and getting sick that makes children especially likely to get develop strong aversions to food.

Answer choice (C) however links those two factors together and says that they're more common in children than in adults. This helps explain why the aversion is more prevalent for children than it is for adults.

Hope that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

I saw this question a little more simplistically (I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing). Here is what's going on:

(Sick → Develop strong distaste)
→
Explains why children develop strong distaste

What is missing here? This is almost like a sufficient assumption question. How can we speak from the premise that SOMEONE who gets sick DEVELOPS strong distaste to conclude that this causal connection is why children develop strong distaste. What are we forgetting? We are forgetting that we haven't established if children actually get sick!

This is what (C) does. (C) says that children become sick more often than adults. Combine this with what we know: someone who gets sick will often develop a strong distaste. Now it makes much more sense to conclude that the sickness is what causes the distaste.

[go_nuts]

Hi,

So I picked B because I thought : if children are seeing less connection between health and food (i.e. food A caused sickness) , then they might be more likely to believe that the distinctive food that they had was the cause of the sickness even if it wasn't. On the other hand, if adults were seeing more connection between health and food (i.e. certain foods are unhealthy and can make one sick) , then they might not fall for believing that the "most distinctive" food is the culprit.

But on second thought, maybe such prior knowledge wouldn't matter because the process of developing a strong distaste is not a "conscious" one??
Based on the premise, sickness is often attributed to the "most distinctive" food of all the foods in the meal. This does seem like a subconscious mechanism because if the person were making a conscious attribution, the person might be more logical in the attribution (looking at which foods expired, etc.)

I am not sure if this is the correct reasoning to eliminate B.... B seemed really attractive when I was picking it

I would appreciate some clarifications! Thank you!