Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT120 S3 Q21 Explanation

Clearly, fitness consultants who smoke

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsSufficient Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Clearly, fitness consultants who smoke cigarettes cannot help their clients become healthier. If they do not care about their own health, they cannot really care for their clients’ health, and if they do not cannot help them to become healthier.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
21.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following

Answer choices

  1. Trap22% picked this

    Anyone who does not care for his or her own health cannot help

    Unrelated to Goal Not a New Idea Since this doesn't contain any information about "smoking cigarettes" it's functionally useless to us. Until we hear something about people who smoke, we have no chance of mathematically proving something about "people who smoke". Could we apply this answer choice's rule to fitness consultants who smoke? Are they people who "don't care for their own health"? We don't know. That's the whole problem. We don't know anything about fitness consultants who smoke because there was no evidence about them. This answer is announcing the inference that you get by combining the two conditional premises. We already "have" this idea, because if they tell us "if A then B, and if B then C", we already "know" that "if A then C". A Sufficient Assumption answer could never be correct if it just repeats something we already know.

  2. Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

    Anyone who cares about the health of others can help others

    Since this doesn't contain any information about "smoking cigarettes" it's functionally useless to us. Could we apply this answer choice's rule to fitness consultants who smoke? Are they people who "do care for their own health"? We don't know. That's the whole problem. We don't know anything about fitness consultants who smoke because there was no evidence about them.

  3. Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

    Anyone who does not care for the health of others cannot help

    Since this doesn't contain any information about "smoking cigarettes" it's functionally useless to us. Could we apply this answer choice's rule to fitness consultants who smoke? Are they people who "do not care for their own health"? We don't know. That's the whole problem. We don't know anything about fitness consultants who smoke because there was no evidence about them.

  4. Bad Trigger Match3% picked this

    Anyone who does not smoke cares about the health

    This is finally an answer about "smoking". It says don't smoke ? care about others' health Could we apply this rule to fitness consultants who smoke? No, because it's a rule about people who don't smoke.

  5. Correct71% picked this

    Anyone who cares about his or her own health does

    Why this is right

    This is the contrapositive we predicted. care about own health ? doesn't smoke When we contrapose this answer it will look more like the gap we wanted: does smoke ? doesn't care own health Can we apply this rule to fitness consultants who smoke cigarettes? Yes, finally! Since they smoke, this rule tells us that they don't care about their own health. The premises then say that since they don't care about their own health, they can't care for their clients' health, and thus they can't help their clients become healthier. We derived the conclusion! Fitness consultants who smoke can't help their clients become healthier.

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

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