Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q24 Sociologist: Research shows, contrary

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

Sociologist: Research shows, contrary to popular opinion, that, all other things being equal, most people who have pets are less happy than most people who do not.

Conclusion (therefore)

Any person who wants to be as happy as possible would do well to consider not having a pet.

Evidence

Research shows, contrary to popular opinion, that, all other things being equal, most people who have pets are less happy than most people who do not.

Evaluate

The argument presents a Curious Fact (an asymmetric comparison) in the evidence.

curious fact: Why are people with pets usually less happy than people without? explanation: The pet made them less happy.

They usually weaken Explain Curious Fact arguments with an alternate explanation for the curious fact. Since this is a correlation, we can reflexively consider the two alternate explanations we always consider:

Reverse Causality (maybe they here unhappy first, and the unhappiness caused them to get a pet to try to cheer themselves up)

Third Factor (maybe both having pets and being less happy are connected to having children)

Goal

Find an answer that undermines the idea that the presence of pets decreases happiness, either by suggesting an alternate factor or making it less plausible that owning pets lowers your happiness.

24.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the sociologist's argument?

Some people who have pets
No Impact / Too Weak
It's incredibly unlikely that "some" would be a correct answer on Str, Wkn, or Paradox. This is saying there is at least one person with pets who's happier than most non-pet owners. The author's evidence says "most pet owners are less happy, not all of them", so it doesn't hurt the author's case to be presented with outliers of pet owners who are happier.
21% picked this
Most people who have no
No Impact
The regret of non-pet owners doesn't directly address pet owners' happiness levels. It doesn't inform whether or not having a pet affects happiness or the overall argument.
2% picked this
Most people who have pets
No Impact
Stating that most pet owners are reasonably happy does not counter the claim that most non-pet owners are generally happier, hence not weakening the argument.
5% picked this
Correct
Most people who have pets
Why this is right
If most people who have pets feel happier specifically because they own pets, this directly contradicts the idea that having a pet would reduce happiness. It badly hurts the plausibility of the author's causal assumption that pet owners are unhappy because of their pets.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
All people who have no
No Impact / Too Weak
Knowing that all non-pet owners feel unhappy at times doesn't contribute much to understanding the relative happiness between pet owners and non-pet owners as per the argument. The author certainly wasn't saying that people without pets are happy 100% of the time. She was just saying on average they're happier than people with pets.
9% 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