The high rate of depression among people in countries that do not rece...
The high rate of depression among people in countries that do not receive much sunlight most of the year prompted researchers at the University of Frankphyl to study the link between a lack of vitamin D, which is found naturally in sunlight, and the incidence of depression. The study found that in patients with a relatively severe degree of depression, the level of vitamin D was lower than in patients with a milder degree of depression. The researchers hence concluded that people in such countries can avert depression by including vitamin D supplements in their diet.
Which of the following is required for the conclusion drawn by the researchers to hold true?
Argument Analysis
Pre-Thinking
Conclusion Clarification
This is a causal argument.
The conclusion states that people in countries that do not receive much sunlight most of the year can avoid depression by including vitamin D supplements in their diet. The conclusion is based on a study that found that in patients with a relatively severe degree of depression, the level of vitamin D was lower than in patients with a milder degree of depression.
Pre-Thinking Approach
To pre-think assumptions, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion. To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion. We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. The assumption then will be that the condition does not exist.
Linkage#1 – The study found that in patients with a relatively severe degree of depression, the level of vitamin D was lower than in patients with a milder degree of depression.
- Falsification Condition: What if the severe degree of depression in a person causes the level of vitamin D to decrease in the patient? If this were true, then the conclusion will be falsified. Please note that this is a fundamental assumption made in causal arguments that the effect does not lead to the cause.
- Assumption: The severity of depression in a person doesn’t affect the level of vitamin D in the person.
With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.
Answer Choices
A
There is a significant difference in the effect that vitamin D obtained directly from sunlight and that obtained from dietary supplements has on the health of a patient suffering from depression.
Incorrect - Opposite
If the effect of vitamin D on a patient’s health varies depending upon its source, the conclusion is weakened since now people in countries that do not receive much sunlight may not be able to avoid depression by including vitamin D supplements in their diet.
B
Patients with the most severe degree of depression belonged to countries that do not receive sunlight up to extended periods of six months.
Incorrect - No new information
As regards the severity of depression, the argument only makes a relative comparison between two kinds of patients - those with severe and milder depression. However, this choice talks about the most severe degree of depression.
C
Both people with a severe degree of depression and those with a mild degree of depression belonged to the same economic strata.
Incorrect - Irrelevant
The economic status of the people is not relevant to the conclusion that is based on the link between the lack of vitamin D and the incidence of depression.
d
The lack of vitamin D is not triggered by depression in patients.
Correct
This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1. By eliminating the possibility of depression causing the lack of vitamin D, it defends the argument from a potential weakener.
E
The required dose for vitamin D supplements is significantly higher for patients with severe depression than for patients with mild depression.
Incorrect - Irrelevant
The relative dose of vitamin D is not relevant to the argument since it doesn’t tell us whether patients can avoid depression by taking such doses.