LSAT 152 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Researcher: In an experiment, 500 families were given a medical …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Having a medical self-help book improves family health.

REASONING: Families who got the book made fewer doctor visits, and improved health can lead to fewer doctor visits.

ANALYSIS: The argument is saying:

Receiving book = less doctor visits
Improved health = less doctor visits

So, receiving books -> improved health.

It’s treating fewer doctor visits as proof of better health, but that’s not supported. We know that improved health can lead people to visit doctors less often. But the argument assumes it is the only explanation for fewer visits.

There could be other reasons families with the book went to doctors less often. For example, they may have used the book to self-diagnose or treat problems they otherwise would have brought to a doctor. In that scenario, doctor visits fall, but family health has not necessarily improved.

So it’s confusing one possible cause of fewer doctor visits (better health) with the only possible cause. It observes an effect and assumes it must have arisen from one particular explanation, while overlooking alternative causes of the same effect.

___________

1. If this were true, it would make the evidence even messier (if the control groups also had books, why didn’t they have less visits?). But it doesn’t address the jump from fewer visits to better health.
2. The problem isn’t whether the book caused fewer visits. It’s whether those fewer visits show improved health.
3. This says one cause can have many effects. But the argument’s issue is the reverse: it overlooks that one effect (fewer doctor visits) can have multiple causes.
4. CORRECT. Two different states of affairs can produce the same result, even though one does not cause the other. Improved health may reduce doctor visits, but so might increased self-treatment, and the argument assumes the former without justification.
5. This describes a possible confound where some third factor explains both book ownership and fewer visits. But in the experiment, the books were assigned to families, not naturally selected by them, which blocks this concern.