Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT101 S2 Q1 Explanation

Press release: A comprehensive

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

TopicsFlaw

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

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

Press release: A comprehensive review evaluating the medical studies done up to the present time has found no reason to think that drinking coffee in normal amounts harms the coffee-drinker’s heart. So coffee beverage—it is safe to drink coffee.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

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

The question
1.

Which one of the following points to a weakness in the reasoning in the

Answer choices

  1. Not a Flaw15% picked this

    The review was only an evaluation of studies and did not itself undertake

    There's nothing wrong with doing a "study of studies". In many ways, it's the most respected for of medical data, since it aggregates and balances the findings of lots of studies.

  2. Correct69% picked this

    The health of the heart is not identical with the general health

    Why this is right

    This is pointing to the illicit move from, "If the docs say it's safe for your heart, then I guess it's safe to consume." That would be like saying, "If the doctors say that cigarettes are safe for your brain, then I guess it's safe to consume cigarettes." Just because coffee might be fine for the heart doesn't show it's safe, since something could be safe for the heart but unsafe for some other part of the body.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Not an Objection5% picked this

    Coffee drinkers might choose to eat, along with their coffee, foods containing substances that

    The author isn't saying, "No one who drinks coffee will have their heart harmed". This answer is objecting to that sort of claim. The author is just saying, "the coffee won't harm your heart".

  4. Not an Objection1% picked this

    Other beverages besides coffee might contain stimulants that have some effect

    The author said "coffee doesn't have any harmful effects on the heart" and goes on to conclude that "coffee is safe". Whether other beverages are safe, whether other beverages do or don't have an effect on the heart is all irrelevant to the author's argument.

  5. Not an Objection10% picked this

    Drinking unusually large amount of coffee could be caused by stress that itself directly

    This sounds close to our other objection: your study only talks about normal amounts. what if abnormal amounts are unsafe for the heart? But this answer is saying that stress harms your heart, not that unusually large amounts of coffee drinking harm your heart.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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