QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
- Moderate exercise can greatly improve heart health.
- A half hour of walking on most days of the week is enough for these benefits.
- More intense exercise is always better, but not necessary.
ANALYSIS: I’ve paraphrased the facts above. They have exactly the same meaning, but I’ve removed some of the ambiguities.
You should carefully compare them to the stimulus. There are two common points of confusion on this question:
- Is more vigorous exercise always better? Yes. The argument says “more vigorous exercise is more effective”. You must take LSAT statements literally: this means it is always better.
- Is a strenuous workout the same as vigorous exercise? Yes. Strenuous exercise is more vigorous than walking. These are the dictionary definitions of these words.
- CORRECT. This is supported because:
1. We know a moderate workout on most days improves heart health, and
2. We know more vigorous exercise is always better. “Strenuous” is more vigorous than moderate exercise/brisk walking.
- This isn’t supported. The second sentence says you should exercise most days of the week to produce the benefits.
- We don’t know this. In fact, the argument suggests the opposite is true: it says “more vigorous exercise is more effective”. That’s clear. Strenuous is better, even if it isn’t necessary.
E.g. You might get 70% of possible benefits from brisk walking, but 100% of potential benefits from strenuous exercise.
- This is ridiculous. If an argument says “Exercise can help the heart”, that never means “only exercise can help the heart”.
- This contradicts the stimulus. The final sentence clearly said “strenuous exercise is not necessary”.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly