LSAT 34, Logical Reasoning I, Q17, LSATHacks

LR Question 17 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Dietary researcher: A recent study reports that…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken 

CONCLUSION: Human lifespan could not be extended through caloric restriction.

REASONING: Restricting lab animals’ diet just brings their calorie consumption back to the levels they ate in the wild. It is their normal lifespan that is being restored.

ANALYSIS: This isn’t a great argument. Humans no longer live in the wild and we tend to eat large amounts of calories. So caloric restriction might boost our lifespan back to natural levels. 

___________

1. CORRECT. This would mean that we are like lab animals. We would benefit from eating smaller amounts of calories as it would restore us to our natural diet. 
2. This doesn’t tell us whether or not calories affect lifespan. Both groups ate low-calorie. Percentage of fat was the only difference.
3. If some experiments not based on lab animals do produce worthwhile ideas…how does that weaken the idea that this experiment based on lab animals doesn’t have a worthwhile idea?
4. “Some” is always pretty vague. This could mean 3 people out of 2 million. This doesn’t weaken the idea that on average, low-calorie diets will not increase lifespan.
5. As in D, “some” is a very, very vague term. It could mean that worms life longer on low calories but that humans don’t. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.