Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S3 · Q14 It is inaccurate to say that a

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

It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes, since a diet high in refined sugar can make a person overweight, and being overweight can predispose a person to adult-onset diabetes.

Conclusion

It is inaccurate to say that a diet high in refined sugar cannot cause adult-onset diabetes.

rephrase: a diet high in refined sugar can cause adult onset diabetes.

Evidence (since)

A high-sugar diet can make a person overweight, and being overweight can predispose a person to adult-onset diabetes.

Evaluate

The evidence presents a causal chain: high sugar >> overweight >> adult diabetes

The author has thus shown a causal path from high sugar to adult diabetes.

Goal

We want two premises that form a causal chain: Prem: A can lead to B Prem: B can lead to C

and then a Conc that connects them (or that denies that they can't be connected) Conc: A can lead to C or Conc: It's wrong to say that A can't lead to C

14.

The argument is most parallel, in its logical structure, to which one of the following?

It is inaccurate to say
Bad Conclusion Match
This conclusion is denying a causal connection. We want our conclusion to be affirming a causal connection. The evidence gives us something of a causal chain by saying: warm/crowded >> virus >> cold So the conclusion should be saying, "It's wrong to say that warm/crowded places can't cause a cold".
3% picked this
It is accurate to say
Bad Conclusion Match
This conclusion isn't causal at all, nor is the evidence. The evidence also doesn't chain together. It just says some are this, some are that.
1% picked this
It is correct to say
Bad Conclusion Match
Weaker Conclusion/Evidence Match Bad Validity Match The conclusion is affirming a causal connection, but much more strongly than in the original argument. The original argument is just showing that high sugar can lead to adult diabetes, not that high sugar is the primary cause of adult diabetes. The evidence provides a chain: fertilizer >> rapid growth >> vulnerable to disease But the validity of this argument is much lower than the original, because the evidence only shows that fertilizer has some causal connection to disease, not that it's the primary cause.
2% picked this
Correct
It is incorrect to say
Why this is right
The evidence provides a causal chain: bad oil >> deteriorating valve >> poorer mileage So the author has demonstrated that bad oil can lead to poorer mileage. And the conclusion has the same rebuttal feel as the original, saying "it's wrong to say that bad oil can't cause poorer mileage".
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
92% picked this
It is inaccurate to say
Bad Conclusion Match
Weaker Conclusion/Evidence Match Bad Validity Match The conclusion is a rebuttal, but it's not exactly rebutting a causal claim. The evidence does not provide a causal chain. And it's questionable whether this conclusion is even valid. After all, if your teacher was taught by Alexander the Great, then in an indirect sense you are "a student" of Alexander the Great. You're not sitting in class with him, but you're still probably learning from him indirectly.
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