Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S1 · Q8 Based on data collected from policyholders

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

Start practicing free

Based on data collected from policyholders, life insurance companies have developed tables that list standard weight ranges for various heights.

Conclusion (Therefore)

If people whose weight falls outside their given range modified their weight to fall within that range, their overall life expectancies would improve.

Evidence

Life insurance policyholders whose weight fell within the range given for their height lived longer than those whose weight fell outside their given range.

Evaluate

The author interprets the correlation in the second sentence to have this causal meaning: being inside the standard weight range for your height causes you to live longer.

And because of that causal assumption, the author makes the prediction that if you're out of range, then bringing yourself into range would extend your life expectancy.

If you're underweight for your height, is gaining weight in order to fall within that range going to improve your life expectancy? (not if you do it through weird, dangerous weight-gaining drugs or do it by overeating crappy food)

If you're overweight for your height, is losing weight in order to fall within that range going to improve your life expectancy? (not if you do it through weird, dangerous weight-loss drugs or do it by starving yourself)

Goal

The correct answer is unlikely to be a Linking idea, but if it were, maybe it would sound like,

But it's more likely that we'll see a Defender idea, an answer that, if negated, would weaken the argument. So look for an answer ruling-out a potential bad thing that could happen if people were to try to modify their weight to fall within that standard range.

8.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

  1. Some people would be unwilling

    Out of Scope: unwilling

    This argument has nothing to do with claiming that people are willing to modify their weights. It's only saying that if they modified their weight, a certain result would follow.

    1% picked this

  2. Life insurance companies intended their

    Out of Scope: companies' intent

    The author doesn't need to assume that life insurance companies intended their tables to be used the way the author is using them. I might use a world map to plan an invasion of Australia. That doesn't mean that the map maker intended for the map to be used to invade Australia.

    14% picked this

  3. The tables include data gathered

    Weakens

    The author doesn't need to assume anything about the specifics of how the life insurance company puts together its table. But if the table includes deaths that result from accidents, that actually introduces some noise that calls into question the way the author is interpreting the correlation. An alternate explanation for the 2nd sentence could be, "People whose weight fell outside the standard range didn't live less long because their weight killed them; these people were more likely to die in an accident that killed them much earlier in life than natural causes would have."

    3% picked this

  4. Holders of life insurance policies

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The author doesn't need to compare insurance policy holders to the general population. It doesn't affect the argument whether policyholders have shorter life expectancies, longer ones, or similar ones. The only logically relevant part of the policyholder table is the comparison between policyholders within weight range vs. not in weight range.

    7% picked this

  5. Correct

    People’s efforts to modify their

    Why this is right

    As we predicted, this answer rules out a possible objection. The author makes a prediction, and we could fight that prediction by saying that if people try to change their weight to get it in range, it will not increase their life expectancy. Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and we see an answer with "ruling out" language like not / no, we want to consider it. Tons of correct answers (the vast majority of Defender answers) have that feature. If we negate this answer, does it hurt the argument? "People efforts to modify their weight would damage their health enough to decrease their overall life expectancies" Yes, that definitely weakens! In this case, it basically contradicts the conclusion. The correct answer, when negated, will weaken the argument. In this case, it weakens it so much it basically refutes the conclusion!

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

    75% 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