Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q4 Most small children are flat-footed

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

Most small children are flat-footed.

Background

Most small children are flat-footed. If flat-footedness persists past early childhood, it can lead to discomfort. Traditionally, flat-footed children wear special shoes that give extra support to foster development of an arch.

Implicit Conclusion

The traditional treatment is efficacious — wearing the special shoes promotes arch development.

Evaluate

The treatment counts as efficacious only if children who wear the shoes actually develop arches at a higher rate than they would without the shoes. If kids without the shoes develop arches at the same rate, the shoes aren't doing anything — the arch was going to develop anyway.

Goal

Find evidence that arch development happens just as often without the shoes — that's a direct hit on efficacy.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the efficacy of the traditional treatment described above?

  1. Many small children who have

    No Impact

    That non-flat-footed children also wear the special shoes tells us nothing about whether the shoes help flat-footed children develop arches. Sales patterns or fashion don't affect efficacy. The treatment's value depends on what it does for the kids it's aimed at.

    3% picked this

  2. Studies of flat-footed adults show

    No Impact

    This compares stress fractures in flat feet vs. high arches. The argument is about whether the shoes treat flat-footedness — i.e., whether they help develop arches. Stress-fracture comparisons don't address whether the shoes do their stated job. (If anything, this might suggest flat feet aren't so bad — but it doesn't speak to whether the shoes work.)

    3% picked this

  3. Although most children’s flat-footedness is

    No Impact

    The fact that most kids outgrow flat-footedness by puberty is neutral on its own — without comparing shoe-wearers to non-wearers. If shoe-wearers and non-wearers both correct at the same rate, the shoes don't work; if shoe-wearers correct faster or more reliably, they do. This answer doesn't supply that comparison.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    Flat-footed children who do not

    Why this is right

    This is the direct hit. If flat-footed children who don't wear the special shoes are just as likely to develop natural arches as those who do, the shoes are doing no work — the arch was going to develop anyway. Any apparent success of the treatment is just the natural course of the condition. (D) directly undercuts the claim that the shoes are efficacious.

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

    89% picked this

  5. Some children who are not

    No Impact

    This describes a separate condition — children with rotated hip/leg bones — that has nothing to do with whether the special shoes treat flat-footedness. The argument's focus is the shoes vs. arch development; rotation issues in non-flat-footed kids are irrelevant.

    1% 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