Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q19 Physician: Hatha yoga is 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

Physician: Hatha yoga is a powerful tool for helping people quit smoking.

Conclusion

Hatha yoga is a powerful tool for helping people quit smoking.

Evidence

In a trial, people who practiced hatha yoga and got individual counseling reduced smoking and cravings as much as did people who went to traditional self-help groups and got individual counseling.

Evaluate

Given that yoga + counseling = self-help + counseling (in terms of reducing smoking / craving)

How could we argue that Hatha yoga is not a powerful tool ?

Well, first of all we need to watch out for the vagueness of "reduced smoking and cravings as much as X".

I can say . That doesn't mean that either action actually engendered good will. (They might be tied for engendering ZERO good will)

Similarly, maybe self-help + counseling doesn't reduce smoking and cravings much at all. In that case, if hatha yoga + counseling reduces a comparable level, then hatha + counseling also don't reduce smoking and cravings much at all. Thus, it would be hard to call hatha yoga a powerful tool.

Finally, maybe self-help + counseling does powerfully reduce smoking and cravings, but it's all because of the counseling. Thus, hatha + counseling would also powerfully reduce smoking and cravings, but not because hatha yoga is a powerful tool, rather because counseling has that effect on its own.

Goal

Look for an answer saying or an answer saying .

19.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument relies?

The individual counseling received by
Too Strong: did not help
It doesn't hurt the author's argument if the counseling did help them quit smoking somewhat. It would only be bad for the author's argument if the counseling were the main thing that helped them quit smoking. Our author believes that people who did hatha + counseling had meaningful improvements, and that hatha yoga was a meaningful, powerful part of that, but it doesn't need to be exclusively because of hatha yoga.
31% picked this
Most smokers are able to
Too Specific
Too Specific: most Out of Scope: able The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time we see it, because when you negate it, you're basically flipping a claim from being about 51% of people vs. 49% of people. Does it make a difference to this author's argument (that hatha yoga is a powerful tool to help quit smoking) if 51% of people are able to do it, vs. 49%? Of course not, which is why the author doesn't need to assume anything as specific as "most". It is also completely irrelevant to this argument whether lots of people are able to do hatha yoga. If I'm arguing that "reaching the top of Mt. Everest is a powerful way to put your life into perspective", I am correct, as long as those who do reach the top generally find it puts their life into perspective. My claim doesn't imply that I think a sizable portion of the population has the financial or physical means to climb Everest.
1% picked this
Correct
Traditional self-help groups are powerful
Why this is right
If self-help groups are not powerful tools, then whatever reduction of smoking/cravings was achieved in the "self-help + counseling" group would apparently be attributable mainly to the counseling. That would be an objection to the argument. In our evaluation, we thought of this objection, "What if hatha + counseling experiences as big a reduction as self-help + counseling but it's due to the counseling in each group, not due to the yoga?" Negating this answer choice is giving us that objection. Here's a more mathematical way to think of it. When it comes to how much reduction in smoking/cravings you get, the study found this: hatha + counseling = self-help + counseling Dust off your algebra skills for a sec. How do you simplify this equation? H + C = S + C - C - C ----------------------- H = S Given that counseling was the same in both groups, we can infer that hatha yoga contributed as much as self-help groups did. So if the author thinks that hatha is a powerful tool, then he must be assuming that self-help groups are a powerful tool as well.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
62% picked this
People who practice hatha yoga
Out of Scope: damaging themselves
The scope of the argument is only about whether hatha yoga helps you quit smoking. If it helps you quit, but your legs fall off in the process, the author is still correct in her conclusion. A lot of answers are trying to get students to consider a broader, fuzzier conversation: should I do hatha yoga? If the author had said, "Thus, people should use hatha yoga to quit smoking" then it would be fair game to consider the tradeoffs: okay, on the plus side, it will help me quit smoking ... are there any downsides, like physically damaging myself? If the author had offered advice, it would also be more relevant what (B) is talking about ... is this feasible advice for most people? But if the author's conclusion is simply a descriptive truth that hatha yoga helps you quit smoking, then the truth value of that claim has nothing to do with how much it costs, who can/can't do it, what other things (potentially negative) that hatha yoga might do.
4% picked this
Other forms of yoga are
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: other forms of yoga This argument is only about hatha yoga. Nothing comparing it to other forms of yoga is ever talked about, so we have no idea what positions the author might hold on other forms of yoga. This is trying to play into the trap of Only thing mentioned = Only thing i.e. it's trying to trap students into thinking, "Welp ... I guess if he only mentioned hatha yoga as a powerful tool, he must think it's the best form of yoga for helping people to quit smoking." We're never allowed to make that illicit inference. When we say "Black Lives Matter", we're not saying "they're the lives that matter most" or that "all other types of lives that I didn't mention don't matter".
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