Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT10 S1 Q2 Explanation

Switching to “low-yield” cigarettes

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

TopicsParadox

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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. This result is surprising, been implicated as contributing to heart disease.

What this question is testing

Paradox

Paradox

Here's the puzzle: low-yield cigarettes are designed to deliver less of the bad stuff. The bad stuff causes heart attacks. So switching to them should reduce heart attacks. But it doesn't. Why?

Evaluate

The key is the phrase "when tested on a standard machine." A machine smokes a cigarette in a fixed way — same draw, same number of puffs, every time. Real humans aren't machines. If a human switches to a "low-yield" cigarette and then unconsciously starts smoking it more aggressively — bigger puffs, more cigarettes per day — they could end up taking in the same amount of nicotine and CO as before.

Think of it like switching from regular soda to diet soda but then drinking three cans instead of one. The "low-calorie" label is technically correct per can, but the total calorie intake hasn't dropped.

Goal

Find the answer that shows real smokers compensate for the lower yield.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
2.

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

Answer choices

  1. No Impact1% picked this

    Smoking low-yield cigarettes has become fashionable, as relatively healthier styles of life have become more popular than those that

    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.

  2. No Impact2% picked this

    For those who are themselves smokers, inhaling the smoke of others is not generally a significant factor contributing to an

    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.

  3. No Impact3% picked this

    Nicotine does not contribute as much to heart disease as does

    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.

  4. No Impact1% picked this

    Carbon monoxide and cigarette tar are not

    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.

  5. Correct93% picked this

    People who switch from high-yield to low-yield cigarettes often compensate by increasing the number and depth of puffs in order to

    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.

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