Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q14 In response to office workers’

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

In response to office workers’ worries about the health risks associated with using video display terminals (VDTs), researchers asked office workers to estimate both the amount of time they had spent using VDTs and how often they had suffered headaches over the previous year.

Conclusion (to conclude that)

VDTs cause headaches.

Evidence

Researchers conducted a survey asking office workers to estimate their VDT usage and frequency of headaches over the past year.

The survey showed frequent VDT users suffered headaches more often than other office workers.

Evaluate

This argument involves correlational reasoning: it observes a correlation between VDT usage and headache frequency and concludes a causal relationship.

CUROUS FACT: why is VDT usage correlated with headaches? EXPLANATION: VDT usage causes headaches.

To undermine the argument, we should consider alternative explanations for the observed correlation or demonstrate that the VDT usage doesn't actually cause headaches.

A common pattern to consider is Reverse Causality, where possibly the headaches caused people to think they spent more time using VDTs, or Third Factor, where some other variable causes both headache frequency and VDT usage estimation.

Goal

Let's find an answer that suggests an alternative explanation for the correlation, such as a factor that could cause both increased VDT usage estimation and headaches or that undermines the plausibility of the idea that using VDT could cause headaches.

14.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the researchers' conclusion?

  1. Few of the office workers

    No Impact

    This states that few workers participated in health programs, which has no direct link to the correlation between VDT use and headaches, failing to address the causal connection.

    5% picked this

  2. In their study the researchers

    No Impact

    This indicates researchers didn’t distinguish between headache severities. The conclusion concerns any headaches linked to VDTs, making this distinction irrelevant to the causal claim.

    2% picked this

  3. Previous studies have shown that

    Strengthens

    This claims glare from VDTs causes eyestrain, indirectly supporting the link between VDT use and headaches, aligning with the causal premise under discussion.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    Office workers who experienced frequent

    Why this is right

    This suggests that those who experience frequent headaches overestimate their VDT usage, pointing to a third factor—misreporting—as a reason for the correlation. This challenges the causal link by suggesting that headaches are independent of actual VDT use.

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

    83% picked this

  5. Office workers who regularly used

    Strengthens

    This claims VDT users experience the same job-related stress as non-users, ruling out job stress as an alternate explanation and lending support to the VDT-headache causal connection.

    8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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