Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S3 · Q24 Dietician: “The French Paradox” refers

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

Dietician: “The French Paradox” refers to the unusual concurrence in the population of France of a low incidence of heart disease and a diet high in fat.

Conclusion

If North Americans wants to be healthier without cutting fat intake, they should drink more wine.

Intermediate Conclusion

French people drink a lot of red wine, which apparently mitigates the bad effects of the fat in their diet.

Evidence

In France, they have a diet high in fat and yet a low incidence of heart disease. In North America, they have one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world.

Evaluate

There seems to be more than one attack point for this argument. We're not sure that the reason French people have low heart disease despite high fat is that they drink lots of red wine. The author is stipulating that as "the most likely explanation" but we don't have to accept that as fact. I listed it as an Intermediate Conclusion to reflect the fact that it's still just an opinion.

But let's say we accept the opinion as fact: drinking lots of red wine helps French people mitigate the harmful effects of the fat in their diet.

Does that prove that North Americans would be healthier by drinking more red wine?

First of all, the argument has to assume a difference. It has to assume that North Americans aren't already drinking as much red wine as the French do.

Secondly, the argument has to assume a similarity. It has to assume that North Americans have this crazy high rate of heart disease (in large part) because of fat in their diet. Otherwise, it makes no sense to prescribe the French 'remedy' for fat, if North Americans don't each much fat to begin with.

Finally, it seems to conflate "lowering your risk of heart disease" with "getting healthier". Maybe red wine would help North Americans with their hearts but harm their health in other ways (liver, blood pressure, etc.)

Goal

Look for an answer that offers an alternative explanation for why French people have high fat / low heart disease, an answer that makes it seem less plausible that red wine is the causal difference-maker, or an answer that suggests that even if red wine made North Americans less likely to get heart disease, it might make them less healthy in some other way.

24.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the dietician's argument?

  1. French men consume as much

    Unclear Impact

    Without knowing whether French men have more / similar / less fat in their diet to French women, it's hard to know what effect this would have. The risk factors for heart disease might be higher for French men in general, and red wine reduces their risk but not down to the level of French women who drink red wine.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    A greater intake of red

    Why this is right

    This is objecting to the move from "red wine can lower your risk of heart disease" to "red wine can make you healthier". By bringing up some non-heart related health dangers of drinking more red wine, this answer is undermining the Conclusion. Would people really end up healthier if they traded a lower risk of heart disease for a higher risk of liver and other illnesses?

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

    61% picked this

  3. Not all French people have

    Too Weak

    "Not all A's are B" = At least one (some) A is not B. Does it hurt this argument to say, "There is at least one French person that does not have a diet that includes large amounts of fat and a high quantity of red wine"? No, the author was never assuming that every single person in France had high fat / high red wine diet. She's just generalizing about the population in an "on average" sort of way. Answers like this that only provide "at least one data point" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, because they're too weak to have much impact.

    5% picked this

  4. All evidence suggests that the

    Out of Scope: different recommendation

    The author didn't promise that her recommendation was the healthiest thing you could do. She is only claiming that North Americans would be healthier, all other things being equal, if they drank more red wine. If drinking more red wine would make North Americans healthier than they are now, then her conclusion was correct and she wins the case. It doesn't matter if some other course of action would be even more healthy than the one the author is recommending, because the author has only claimed that drinking more red wine would be an improvement, not that it would be the best thing to do.

    4% picked this

  5. Many other regions have much

    Unclear Impact

    Like with (A), we can't judge this comparison without knowing whether these other regions have levels of fat in their diet comparable to people in France.

    18% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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