Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S1 · Q18 Health officials now recommend that

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

Health officials now recommend that people reduce their intake of foods that are high in cholesterol, such as red meat.

Conclusion (So, clearly)

There still are a lot of people completely ignoring the health recommendation. rephrase: there still are a lot of people maintaining their intake of foods that are high in cholesterol

Evidence

Restaurants specializing in steak are flourishing despite an overall decline in the restaurant industry.

Evaluate

The author wants the surprising success of steak-specializing restaurants to prove that lots of people have failed to reduce their intake of foods that are high in cholesterol.

Given that ... restaurants specializing in steak are flourishing,

How could we argue that ... almost everyone has heeded the health recommendation and has reduced their intake of foods that are high in cholesterol?

Well, we could say that they're eating at the steak restaurants, but they're ordering foods that are lower in cholesterol than red meat. I can go to Cheesecake Factory and have a meal that involves no cheesecake. I can go to a restaurant specializing in steak and have a meal that involves no steak.

We would also say that people are reducing their intake of red meat throughout the week (i.e. dinners at home no longer involve high cholesterol foods such as red meat), but then treating themselves to a high cholesterol "cheat day" at a steak restaurant.

Goal

This isn't a famous flaw, and there are potentially different ways of objecting to the argument so we'll need to be flexible.

But we want an answer that allows us to show it's possible that everyone is reducing their overall intake of high cholesterol, even while steak restaurants are somehow thriving.

18.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

It neglects to consider whether
Not an Objection
Since this answer choices begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken, would be an objection. Can we say, "Hey, author --- steak restaurants are attracting customers by offering great deals on steak dinners. So you see, everyone is reducing their overall intake of high cholesterol foods"? Certainly not. If people are gobbling up discount steaks, that would just strengthen the author's contention that people aren't heeding the low cholesterol advice.
4% picked this
It assumes without warrant that
Not Assumed
Since this answer choices begins with takes for granted / presumes / assumes, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would qualify as a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that people who eat at steak restaurants don't need to reduce their intake of high cholesterol foods? No. The author isn't really assuming anything about whether those people do or don't need to reduce their intake. The author is only assuming that "people who eat at steak restaurants have not reduced their intake of high cholesterol foods".
4% picked this
It presupposes that the popularity
Out of Scope: price of beef
Since this answer choices begins with takes for granted / presumes / presupposes, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would qualify as a Necessary Assumption. Did the author need to assume that steak restaurants are surging because there's been a decline in the price of beef? No. The idea of a "decline in the price of beef" is totally out of scope.
1% picked this
It mistakes the correlation of
Unsupported Causal Relationship
This is a weird answer because there is a mini-argument in the second sentence that is committing a correlation vs. causality flaw. The author mistakes the correlation of the decline in beef consumption and the health officials' recommendation for a causal relation. She is assuming that the reason for the decline in beef consumption is the health officials' recommendation. But this answer is saying the author assumes that "people eating less beef" is causing "an overall decline in the restaurant industry". She never makes or implies such a causal connection. And this answer has nothing to do with the actual main conclusion we're supposed to be addressing.
16% picked this
Correct
It fails to consider whether
Why this is right
Since this answer choices begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken, would be an objection. Can we say, "Hey, author --- people who are eating at steak restaurants are still heeding the health recommendation; they are reducing their cholesterol intake by eating less cholesterol when they cook for themselves. The steak restaurant is the exception to their dietary habits"? Sure! The recommendation wasn't that you cease eating ANY foods with high cholesterol. It was that you reduce how much high cholesterol food you eat. It's possible that someone whose doctor recommended more exercise is following that doctor's advice, even though we see that person laying on their couch all day on Saturday. If they started exercising more on Mon - Friday, then they would be doing more exercise than before, even if they're not exercising every single day.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% 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