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
Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.
Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.
Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.
The argument employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?
It cites counterevidence that calls
The evidence for the author's rebuttal (the new studies) doesn't attack the opposing evidence (the correlation between chocolate eating and breakouts). It's actually consistent with that opposing evidence because the studies are trying to explain that same correlation.
8% picked this
It provides additional evidence that
Why this is right
We have additional evidence (new studies) that points out an alternative interpretation (chocolate is an effect, not a cause) of the evidence offered in support of the position being challenged (chocolate eating and acne are correlated).
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
It invokes the superior authority
This one is tempting because the author does invoke new scientific studies as evidence and we do see common view language in the opposing conclusion. That said, the evidence doesn't actually say that science is superior to common views, and the conclusion doesn't dismiss out of hand the relevance of the opposing evidence.
6% picked this
It demonstrates that the position
The evidence doesn't bring up any well-established facts: it brings up some new studies, which is kind of the opposite of well-established. The conclusion doesn't demonstrate that the opposing conclusion is inconsistent with anything. It just raises an alternative conclusion one might draw.
1% picked this
It provides counterexamples to show
The evidence doesn't bring up a counterexample or attack an assumption. And the conclusion is definitely not that causes don't always precede their effects. That's counter to common sense! In order for something to be a cause, it has to come before the effect.
15% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.