QUESTION TEXT: Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The data suggest that human anatomy is not meant for the stresses of jogging.
REASONING: Runners suffer from a lot of injuries that seem connected to jogging. A jogger’s level of experience doesn’t matter: beginners and experts alike suffer these injuries.
ANALYSIS: This sounds like a good argument but we would need to now a bit more about whether jogging is actually the cause of the injuries.
Note that the conclusion is about what appears to be true from the data. It does not claim that jogging is actually inappropriate for our anatomy. Rather, it “appears” to be the case based on the data.
This is a subtle distinction, but the LSAT is built around such distinctions.
The researchers don’t tell us if jogging seems to be the cause of the injuries. Simply linking one thing to another does not prove that one causes the other. It is necessary that the data suggest more than a simple correlation: they must also suggest a causal link.
___________
- CORRECT. This answer choice may seem flawed because it said the link only “appears to be causal.” You might think it is necessary that jogging actually does cause injuries. But the conclusion is only that the data “suggest” our anatomy isn’t meant for jogging. In that case, we only need to know whether the data also merely “suggest” a causal link.
- Since the conclusion is only about the effects of jogging it doesn’t matter if other sports are better or worse.
- The argument actually states that experience isn’t a factor.
- This could be true but it isn’t a necessary assumption. Maybe every sport seems dangerous.
- It could be that we are durable but jogging is especially destructive.
Recap: The question begins with “Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
Leave a Reply