Why did Prof L tell us about twins and a bunch of diseases in the middle of the Exposome lecture?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

When evaluating why Prof L mentioned twins and various diseases during the Exposome lecture, we need to test each statement against the idea that genetic vs environmental contributions are being discussed.
Option 1: 'Twins get more of these diseases than singletons and the exposome is to blame.' This claim makes a broad assertion about twins having higher disease rates and pinning it on the exposome. However, the Exposome concept is about environmental exposures over the life course, not a blanket guarantee that twins necessarily have higher disease rates for all conditions. The statement also implicitly attributes causation to the exposome without distinguishing genetics or shared environment, which is an overly simplistic leap given the nuance typically discussed with twin studies.
Option 2: 'If genetics was the main cause of the diseases, we would expect more twins to share these diseases.' This aligns with the logic used in twin research: if genetics were the primary driver, monozygotic twins (who share nearly all their genes) should show higher concordance for many diseases. Since we observe not perfectly perfect concordance, genetics may not be the sole cause. Thus this reasoning supports the idea that genetics might not be the main cause for these diseases in most twins.
Option 3: 'If genetics isn't the cause of these diseases in most twins, it must be the shared environment of twins that causes most of these diseases' This statement overattributes disease risk to the shared environment of twins. While a shared environment can contribute, the claim that it causes most diseases in twins overstates what twin studies typically show, which is that both genetics and environment (shared and non-shared) play roles, and the extent of each varies by disease. It ignores non-shared environments and other factors.
Option 4: 'If genetics isn't the cause of these diseases in most twins, it must be the environment that causes most of these diseases.' This follows the reasonable inference: if genetic factors don’t explain most cases, environmental influences (whether exposures, lifestyle, or other non-genetic factors) become the likely drivers. It captures the typical counterpoint in Exposome discussions where environment is emphasized when genetics cannot fully account for observed patterns.
Option 5: 'Prof L put that in there by mistake.' This is a meta-statement about the lecturer’s intent rather than a substantive causal explanation. It shifts focus from the evidence and interpretation to the possibility of an error, which is not the same reasoning about causal factors being discussed in the lecture.

To summarize the reasoning across options: Option 2 accurately reflects the logic used in twin studies regarding concordance and genetic contribution, making it a valid inference. Option 4 presents a plausible environmental interpretation when genetics is not the primary driver, which is also consistent with Exposome-focused reasoning. Option 3 overemphasizes the shared twin environment without acknowledging non-shared environmental effects and other complexities. Option 1 conflates the exposome with a blanket twin-disease claim and oversimplifies the relationship. Option 5 shifts to a meta-critique rather than engaging with the causal arguments, which is not aligned with the explanatory goal of the lecture content.

ETX 010 001 SQ 2025 Learning Assignment 3

Why did Prof L tell us about twins and a bunch of diseases in the middle of the Exposome lecture?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

What is the strongest evidence that Multiple sclerosis is not entirely genetically controlled:

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler