Logical Reasoning

PT115 · S4 · Q4 Among North American school-age children

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

Among North American school-age children, there is a strong positive correlation between obesity and the amount of television watched.

Conclusion (therefore)

With the arrival of interactive television, obesity among North American school-age children will increase.

Evidence

Among North American school-age children, there is a strong positive correlation between obesity and the amount of television watched.

Evaluate

Whenever we see a correlation presented in the evidence, X is correlated with Y ppl who are X are more likely to be Y ppl who are X tend to be Y we anticipate that the author will assume that X causes Y (or vice versa).

Here, there was a correlation between obesity and TV watching. Is the author assuming that one causes the other?

Yes, we can tell from her conclusion that she thinks that TV watching causes obesity, because she thinks the arrival of more TV will lead to more obesity.

Correlations are the most famous of all Curious Facts (asymmetric comparisons). We know that when author's state or assume a causal explanation for a curious fact, we're primarily supposed to ask ourselves about Alternate Explanations.

When an author sees that X and Y are correlated and starts acting like X causes Y, we're supposed to automatically think: 1. Could it be Reverse Cause (Y causes X)? 2. Could it be a 3rd Factor (Z causes X and Y)?

#1 would be saying .

#2 would be saying something like, .

However, there's also a New Concept in the Conclusion, this "interactive television", and the author is making a Prediction.

What if "interactive television" is meaningfully different from other television? Maybe kids won't like it, so they won't watch any additional TV as a result. Maybe the interactiveness will actually burn calories so it will combat obesity.

Goal

A correct answer could rule out an alternate explanation for the correlation.

Or it could rule out a possible objection that interactive TV will be unlike regular TV, in terms of school-age children watching lots of it and becoming obese.

4.

The argument requires the assumption that

  1. a sedentary lifestyle is among

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: most important Doesn't Address New Concept The author seems to be thinking that a sedentary (still, motionless, settled, couch potato) lifestyle is a cause of childhood obesity, because she seems to think that TV watching is contributing to obesity. But she doesn't need to think it's among the most important causes. Even if it's on a lower tier of causes of childhood obesity, the argument still makes sense. This is the classic Necessary Assumption trap answer pattern where they try to get us to think that the only thing mentioned is therefore the only or most important thing. They only mentioned TV watching as a cause of obesity, and so they try to get people to think the author is assuming that "only TV watching causes obesity" or "TV watching is one of the most important causes of obesity". This answer also doesn't address "interactive television", the New Concept in the Conclusion, which makes it unappealing on a first pass.

    2% picked this

  2. obesity among North American school-age

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: cable TV Doesn't Address New Concept The author never mentions cable TV, so she is not assuming anything specific about that. We're just talking TV --- it's antennae, it's cable, it's satellite dish. It's everything. This answer also doesn't address "interactive television", the New Concept in the Conclusion, which makes it unappealing on a first pass.

    7% picked this

  3. genetics makes no significant contribution

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: no significant contribution Doesn't Address New Concept If we negate this and say that "genetics does make a significant contribution to obesity", does that hurt the argument? Not at all. As we discussed with (A), the author thinks that TV watching is a cause of obesity. She's not saying it's the only cause or the only significant cause. A correct answer could have ruled out an alternate explanation for the correlation using genetics as the 3rd Factor: (A) Children with stronger genetic predispositions towards obesity do not watch much more TV than other children

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    North American school-age children will

    Why this is right

    (D) and (E) are the only answers to tackle the New Concept in the Conclusion. Was the author thinking that there would be more TV viewing when interactive TV arrives? Definitely! Why else would the author be saying that "obesity will increase"? The author interprets the correlation in the first sentence to mean that as kids watch more TV, they get more obese. Since the author is predicting more obesity when interactive TV arrives, he must be predicting more TV watching when interactive TV arrives. If we negated this and said, "Yo, author -- there isn't going to be any increase in TV watching when interactive television arrives", that would badly weaken the argument. What grounds would the author have for positing that there's going to be an increase in obesity among kids?

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

    86% picked this

  5. within a decade of its

    Too Strong: almost universal

    This makes an incredibly specific and strong prediction (within 10 years, almost every person has interactive TV). The author doesn't need to be committed to such a strong idea. If we said, "actually, within 10 years, only 70% of the population will have interactive TV", would that weaken the argument? No. If 70% of the population has interactive TV, there could be an increase in TV watching among 70% of the population and an increase in obesity among 70% of the population. The author doesn't need 95% or more of people to have interactive TV within 10 years in order for there to be an increase in TV watching and thus an increase in obesity.

    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