LSAT 117 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Doctors urge people to reduce their cholesterol levels …

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: You might need to make more dramatic dietary changes to reduce cholesterol, like becoming vegetarian.

REASONING: Moderate changes often don’t work.

ANALYSIS: We’re asked what role the second sentence plays in the argument. It’s the reasoning.

The conclusion is: you might need to make dramatic changes to your diet to reduce cholesterol.

Why? Because moderate changes often don’t work.

___________

1. The stimulus never counters the doctors’ recommendations. The author agrees with doctors that dietary changes can help; he simply suggests that more significant changes may be required.
2. Crazy. The argument never claims vegetarian diets are healthier than all diets containing meat.
3. CORRECT. It’s the key premise. Moderate changes often fail → greater changes may be necessary.
4. The stimulus never even says vegetarian diets do succeed.
5. It’s not the conclusion. It’s used to support the claim that more dramatic changes may be necessary, not the other way around.