Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S2 · Q25 Studies have shown that specialty

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

Studies have shown that specialty sports foods contain exactly the same nutrients in the same quantities as do common foods from the grocery store.

Conclusion (So)

If it weren't for expensive ad campaigns, very few athletes would buy sports foods.

Evidence

Sports foods have the same types and quantities of nutrients as common grocery store foods but are more expensive.

Evaluate

We could use our Explain Curious Fact template to evaluate:

CURIOUS FACT: Why do athletes pay more for sports foods, when they have the same type/quantity of nutrients as cheaper foods?

EXPLANATION: They are brainwashed by ads.

To weaken, we'd want an alternate explanation for why athletes pay more for these foods. We could also just use our generic weaken template:

GIVEN THAT sports foods have the same type and amount of nutrients as common grocery store foods,

HOW COULD WE ARGUE THAT lots of athletes would still want to pay more to buy sports foods (even if there weren't ads for them)?

To weaken the conclusion, we want to know something that athletes would find desirable about sports foods, despite their higher cost and equivalent nutritional content.

Goal

Identify an answer choice that provides a different reason, aside from advertisement influence, for athletes choosing to buy sports foods.

25.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. Sports foods are occasionally used

    Weaker Impact

    This suggests athletes might buy sports foods because world-famous athletes use them, but it’s a weak reason, as the author could argue that the famous athletes are also influenced by ad campaigns.

    2% picked this

  2. Many grocery stores carry sports

    No Impact

    This points out that grocery stores carry sports foods alongside regular foods but doesn't provide a strong reason for choosing sports foods over regular foods, thus not challenging the ad campaign influence.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    Sports foods are easier than

    Why this is right

    This states that sports foods are easier to carry and consume than regular foods. This provides a practical benefit that could attract athletes to sports foods independently of ad campaigns, thereby offering a strong alternate explanation for their purchase, which weakens the conclusion.

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

    89% picked this

  4. Regular foods contain vitamins and

    Strengthens

    This discusses the nutrients in regular foods, echoing the existing argument about nutrient equivalency and supporting the conclusion that ad campaigns are needed to justify the cost difference.

    3% picked this

  5. Sports foods can nutritionally substitute

    No Impact

    This sounds like a good thing about sports foods, but we already knew this good thing. We were told they have the same type/quantity of nutrients as other foods, which implies that it could nutritionally substitute for meals. But since they are more expensive than other foods, why WOULD you go with sports foods as your nutritional substitute? This answer doesn't provide any reason why we'd pay more to eat these.

    3% 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