Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT107 S3 Q4 Explanation

Most small children are flat-footed.

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

Most small children are flat-footed. This failure of the foot to assume its natural arch, if it persists past early childhood can sometimes result in discomfort and even pain later in life. Traditionally, flat-footedness in children has been treated by having the children wear special in order to foster the development of the arch.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Background

The classic treatment for flat-footed kids: special supportive shoes meant to help an arch develop. The question asks what would call this treatment's efficacy into question.

Evaluate

Here's the trick. If most kids outgrow flat-footedness on their own, then maybe the shoes aren't actually doing the work — maybe the arch was going to develop anyway, and the shoes were just along for the ride.

Think of it like this: imagine I claim my "headache cure" works because everyone who drinks it gets better within a day. If headaches go away on their own within a day, my cure isn't doing anything. The proof of any treatment is showing that people who get the treatment do better than people who don't.

Goal

Find an answer that says: kids without the shoes do just as well. That would mean the shoes aren't adding anything.

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

The question
4.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the efficacy of the traditional

Answer choices

  1. No Impact3% picked this

    Many small children who have normal feet wear the same special shoes as those worn

    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.

  2. No Impact3% picked this

    Studies of flat-footed adults show that flat feet are subject to fewer stress fractures than are feet

    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. No Impact4% picked this

    Although most children’s flat-footedness is corrected by the time the children reach puberty, some people

    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. Correct89% picked this

    Flat-footed children who do not wear the special shoes are as likely to develop natural arches as are flat-footed children

    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.

  5. No Impact1% picked this

    Some children who are not flat-footed have hip and lower leg bones that are rotated excessively

    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.

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