Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q1 Press release: A comprehensive

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

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.

Conclusion

Coffee drinkers can relax; it's safe to drink coffee.

Evidence

A huge review of medical studies found that there's no reason to think that drinking coffee is normal amounts harms the heart.

Evaluate

This argument makes a move from,

Is that fair? Could something be harmless to your heart but unsafe for some other reason?

Probably. Maybe there's something in coffee that harms your kidneys or your reproductive organs.

The other questionable aspect is that the comprehensive review says only that drinking coffee in normal amounts is harmless to the heart. Maybe drinking it in excessive amounts is not harmless.

When the author generalizes in her conclusion, "coffee drinkers can relax", she is implicitly referring to all coffee drinkers. and this review of medical studies has not established that coffee is safe to the hearts of coffee drinkers who drink abnormally large amounts of coffee.

Goal

Let's look for an answer saying , or one saying

Which one of the following points to a weakness in the reasoning in the press release’s argument?

The review was only an
Not a Flaw
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.
15% picked this
Correct
The health of the heart
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.
69% picked this
Coffee drinkers might choose to
Not an Objection
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".
5% picked this
Other beverages besides coffee might
Not an Objection
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.
1% picked this
Drinking unusually large amount of
Not an Objection
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.
10% 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