Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S4 · Q24 A recent study of 6,403 people

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

A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug pravastatin, one of the effects of which is to reduce cholesterol, had about one-third fewer nonfatal heart attacks and one-third fewer deaths from coronary disease than did those not taking the drug.

Conclusion (This shows that)

Lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease.

Evidence

Other studies have shown that those who have heart disease often have higher than average cholesterol levels.

And a recent study showed that people treated with pravastatin (which reduces cholesterol among other things) had about 1/3 fewer nonfatal heart attacks and heart deaths than did people not taking the drug.

Evaluate

Since the Conclusion is causal, but the evidence involves correlations (people who are X are more /less likely to be Y), we can potentially say this author is committing the famous Causal flaw -- overconfidently assuming one causal explanation for the data when others may exist.

The author presents two Curious Facts: 1. How come the people taking this drug that lowers cholesterol had 1/3 fewer heart attacks and deaths?

2. How come those who have heart disease often have higher than average cholesterol levels?

The author then overconfidently assumes one possible causal explanation -- higher cholesterol causes the heart disease. That's why he concludes that lowering cholesterol reduces risk of heart disease.

We always react to Explain Curious Fact arguments by thinking 1. could there be an Alternate Explanation for this curious fact? 2. how plausible is the Author's Explanation

Goal

On Flaw, the correct answer will almost always come at the argument from that #1 direction, complaining that the author is overconfidently assuming/concluding a certain causal relationship from data that is open to multiple interpretations.

24.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument

  1. neglects the possibility that pravastatin

    Not an Objection

    Because this stars with fails to consider / neglects possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would be an Objection to say, "Hey, author -- pravastatin may have severe side effects". The author would be like, "What does that have to do with me? I didn't say everybody should go take pravastatin? I'm only announcing the descriptive truth that lowering cholesterol reduces risk of heart disease. What you all do with that knowledge is your business."

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to consider that pravastatin

    Why this is right

    This does the typical thing Flaw answer choices do when the author commits a Causal flaw -- it points out the possibility of an Alternate Explanation for the Curious Fact. The reason people who take pravastatin have 1/3 fewer heart attacks and fatal heart disease is a consequence of something other than lowered cholesterol. Since we have fails to consider, we can ask ourselves if it would be an Objection to say, "Hey, author -- pravastatin reduces the risk of heart disease due to one of its other effect, not as a consequence of lowering cholesterol". Yes, that would badly hurt the argument! The author's primary evidence for her conclusion is the pravastatin study. If that study isn't evidence of cholesterol reducing risk of heart disease (which is what this answer choice is saying), then her argument is badly weakened.

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

    71% picked this

  3. relies on past findings, rather

    Contradicted: rather than

    The author relies on both past findings and the data found in the specific study. Both of those pieces of evidence offer the same correlation: "higher cholesterol is associated with higher incidence of heart disease". This answer is saying the author doesn't rely on that first study, but that's just not true.

    2% picked this

  4. draws a conclusion regarding the

    Never a Flaw

    There's no such thing as what the conclusion should be saying. The author is free to conclude whatever he/she wants to. We are free to judge whether the conclusion drawn is valid or not. The first half of this answer is accurate, but the second half is just nonsense on LSAT. The author is under no particular burden to make any particular conclusion, so we'll never be complaining that the author made "the wrong" conclusion. (This is the only Flaw answer choice I can remember ever having used that language, though)

    25% picked this

  5. fails to consider what percentage

    Not an Objection

    Because this stars with fails to consider / neglects possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would be an Objection to talk to the author about what % of the general population might be taking pravastatin. Is there a % that would hurt the argument? If only 0.1% of people take it, does that hurt? If 99% of people take it, does that hurt? No percentage would make any difference here. The author is only trying to convince us that "changing this body chemical level would have this disease risk effect". "Lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease" can be true whether 1% or 99% of people are taking a drug that might relate to that claim.

    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