Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S4 · Q8 That long-term cigarette smoking

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

That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact.

Conclusion

You don't need to deny that smoking causes health problems in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held morally or legally responsible for smokers' poor health.

rephrase: You can admit that smoking causes health problems but still say that cigarette companies shouldn't be held morally or legally responsible for those problems.

Evidence (after all)

Excessive candy eating undeniably leads to tooth decay, but no one seriously thinks candy eaters should be able to sue candy manufacturers for cavities.

Evaluate

On older tests, we see this variation of Main Conclusion questions where they ask for the Main Point. Usually, this means that the conclusion is some implied rebuttal conclusion. Sometimes it means the answer feels a little more holistic.

On any Main Conclusion question, we remind ourselves of the two most common places to find the conclusion: 1) a Pivot/Rebuttal claim 2) the First Sentence

Here, it was #1. The second sentence says that we're rebutting what many people believe and introduces the conclusion with a "However" pivot.

Some people would say, And our author is denying that connection, by means of a candy analogy.

Goal

Let's look for the answer that is the best meaning match for the second sentence.

8.

The main point of the argument is that

  1. no one should feel it

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The author isn't concluding that no one should feel the need to deny the smoking-harm fact. The author is concluding that you don't need to deny it in order to reject company responsibility. This answer drops the "in order to" connection and turns it into a free-standing conclusion about denial. That's not the main point.

    9% picked this

  2. people who get cavities should

    Premise

    This is about candy. The conclusion is the second sentence, which is about smoking.

    0% picked this

  3. Correct

    the fact that smokers’ health

    Why this is right

    This paraphrases the second sentence. Saying you don't need to deny X in order to reject Y is akin to saying "You can believe X while also rejecting Y". Or as this answer says it, "The fact that X is true doesn't force you to accept Y". The author's point is that the causal fact (smoking >> poor health) isn't enough by itself to justify holding tobacco companies responsible.

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

    87% picked this

  4. excessive consumption of candy will

    Unsupported

    This is about candy. The second sentence is about smoking.

    1% picked this

  5. if candy manufacturers were held

    Unsupported

    This is about candy. The second sentence is about smoking.

    2% 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