Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT102 S4 Q24 Explanation

Sociologist: Research shows, contrary

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

TopicsWeaken

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

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. Therefore, any person who wants to be well to consider not having a pet.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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

The question
24.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the

Answer choices

  1. No Impact / Too Weak21% picked this

    Some people who have pets are happier than most people who

    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.

  2. No Impact2% picked this

    Most people who have no pets occasionally wish that they

    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.

  3. No Impact5% picked this

    Most people who have pets are

    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.

  4. Correct63% picked this

    Most people who have pets feel happier because they

    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.

  5. No Impact / Too Weak9% picked this

    All people who have no pets admit to feeling

    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.

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