A recent study of 6,403 people

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe

   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%
2. B

   Correct71% picked this

   fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of

   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%
3. C

   Contradicted: rather than2% picked this

   relies on past findings, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in

   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%
4. D

   Never a Flaw25% picked this

   draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the

   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%
5. E

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider what percentage of the general population might be

   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%