LSAT 107 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Several carefully conducted studies…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: You can reduce your risk of heart disease if you avoid meat.

REASONING: 75% of strict vegetarians survived to age 50 without getting serious heart disease.

ANALYSIS: The argument hasn’t told us how many meat eaters survive to age 50 without getting serious heart disease.

The numbers for the vegetarians are not very impressive. 25% die or get serious heart disease before age 50. That’s a terribly high rate.

The flaw is: making a conclusion based on only half of the evidence.

There are three arguments below that make this error. To choose between the other them, we have to look at the other feature of the stimulus: it gives advice to individuals. Only answer choice E does that.

___________

1. This doesn’t say whether people who don’t speed also get into accidents. It’s the same error as the stimulus. But this makes a recommendation about hiring more police officers. The stimulus only gave advice for individuals.
2. This is a good argument. It made a comparison between smokers and non-smokers.
3. This argument hasn’t said whether people who don’t drink coffee manage to avoid dental problems. It makes a conclusion based on only half of the evidence. But unlike the stimulus, it says what government should do. The stimulus said what individuals should do.
4. This argument correctly compares both groups.
5. CORRECT. This argument doesn’t mention whether people who don’t exercise are also able to handle stress. It only looks at half of the evidence. It also mirrors the stimulus by giving advice to individuals.

Recap: The question begins with “Several carefully conducted studies”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.