Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S3 · Q1 If a doctor gives a patient

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

If a doctor gives a patient only a few options for lifestyle modification, the patient is more likely to adhere to the doctor’s advice than if the doctor gives the patient many options.

Statement

If a doctor gives a patient only a few options for better living, they're more likely to follow that advice than if the doctor gives many options.

Implicit Principle

Sounds like, if you give us too many options, we won't do any of them. If you keep it simple, we're more likely to follow the advice.

Goal

Find an answer choice that sounds like .

1.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the principle illustrated above?

  1. People are especially likely to

    Trap

    Topic Trap Weak Match for "few vs. many choices" We're almost never going to see a correct answer on a Parallel / Analogy task that actually uses the same topic (doctors) as the original. This isn't about "fewer options vs. many options". This is about "confusing advice from doctors vs. non-confusing advice from doctors". Could we say that "many options" is more confusing than "fewer options", and thus it matches? We could certainly come back to this if we don't see a better answer, but it's not a strong match.

    4% picked this

  2. People dislike calculating the best

    Bad Match

    This is talking about selecting the best option from a set of options. The original statement is about following a small set of suggestions vs. following a larger set of suggestions. The patients weren't trying to calculate the "best" suggestion the physician made, and there's no discussion of "seeing clear difference in benefit" as the causal difference-maker in the original.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    The tendency people have to

    Why this is right

    An inverse variation / relationship means that as one variable goes up, the other goes down. The more alternatives you're given for behavior modification, the less likely you are to alter your behavior. The fewer alternatives you're given for behavior modification, the more likely you are to alter your behavior. This seems to map onto the original pretty snugly. Patients were more likely to adhere to doctor's advice (i.e. alter their behavior) when there were fewer alternatives.

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

    87% picked this

  4. Most people are unlikely to

    Out of Scope: vivid imagination

    The causal difference-maker in the original statement was "few options vs. many options". The causal difference-maker in this answer choice is "can vividly imagine consequences vs. cannot vividly imagine consequences". Those don't match very well.

    1% picked this

  5. In getting good results, the

    Out of Scope: clarity / accuracy

    The causal difference-maker in the original statement was "few options vs. many options". The causal difference-makers in this answer choice are "clarity and accuracy", which doesn't match very well.

    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