Logical Reasoning

PT10 · S1 · Q2 Switching to “low-yield” cigarettes

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Switching to “low-yield” cigarettes, those that yield less nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide than regular cigarettes when tested on a standard machine, does not, in general, reduce the incidence of heart attack.

Fact 1

Low-yield cigarettes deliver less nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide when tested on a standard machine.

Fact 2

Nicotine and carbon monoxide contribute to heart disease.

Fact 3 (Paradox)

Switching to low-yield cigarettes does not, in general, reduce the incidence of heart attack.

Evaluate

The mismatch is between machine measurement and real-world exposure. The machine smokes a cigarette in a fixed, standardized way. Real smokers don't. If smokers change their behavior when they switch — drawing more deeply, smoking more cigarettes, taking more puffs — they could end up inhaling the same amount of nicotine and CO as before, even though each cigarette tests as "low-yield." That would explain why heart attack rates don't drop.

Goal

Find an answer showing that real-world exposure to nicotine/CO doesn't actually drop when smokers switch.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

Smoking low-yield cigarettes has become
No Impact
A trend of healthier lifestyles among smokers who switch to low-yield should make heart attack rates lower, not the same. If anything, this deepens the puzzle. It doesn't resolve why the switch fails to reduce heart attacks.
1% picked this
For those who are themselves
No Impact
The puzzle is about smokers themselves switching, not about how secondhand smoke affects them. Secondhand smoke from other smokers wouldn't change after a given individual switches to low-yield cigarettes — and the puzzle is why their own switch fails to reduce their heart attack rate. This is on a different track.
1% picked this
Nicotine does not contribute as
No Impact
Even if CO is worse than nicotine, low-yield cigarettes deliver less of both on the standard test. So heart attack rates should still drop somewhat, regardless of which one is the bigger culprit. The relative ranking doesn't resolve why there's no improvement.
2% picked this
Carbon monoxide and cigarette tar
No Impact
Whether CO and tar are addictive doesn't address the heart attack rate question. The puzzle is why nicotine and CO exposure doesn't drop when people switch — addictiveness of CO or tar isn't the link to heart disease the stimulus mentions.
1% picked this
Correct
People who switch from high-yield
Why this is right
This resolves the paradox cleanly. The "low-yield" label is based on standard-machine testing — which doesn't capture real-world smoking behavior. If smokers compensate by puffing harder and smoking more, they end up extracting just as much nicotine (and CO) as before. The cigarettes test "low-yield" but the smokers themselves aren't getting less nicotine and CO. That's why heart attack rates don't drop.
Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
95% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free