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.
- 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.
- This doesn’t tell us whether or not calories affect lifespan. Both groups ate low-calorie. Percentage of fat was the only difference.
- 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?
- “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.
- 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.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly