Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S2 · Q21 Since the sweetness of sugared

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

Since the sweetness of sugared beverages makes athletes more likely to drink them, they can be helpful in avoiding dehydration.

Statements

All three statements relate to sugar / sugared beverages.

causal 1. their sweetness makes athletes more likely to drink them (and drinking them can help athletes avoid dehydration.

causal 2. small amounts of sugar enhance the body's absorption of water and delay muscle fatigue.

causal 3. large amounts of sugar / sugared beverages withdraw water from the blood, thereby exacerbating dehydration.

Evaluate

Normally, the correct answer to Must Be False contradicts a conditional in the statements or contradicts an inference we could make from the statements.

There are no conditionals here, just a bunch of causal relationships.

Small → body absorbs / muscle fatigue sugar more water delayed

Large → takes water from → exacerbates sugar blood to stomach dehydration

Goal

It's hard to have a sense of what to predict here, because there aren't any conditional rules or obvious inferences to make, so we just need to find an answer that we can actively contradict.

We should remind ourselves that Bad Inferences ≠ Must Be False

There's a difference between "can't derive it" and "can derive the opposite".

21.

If the statements above are true, then each of the following could also be true EXCEPT:

Glucose is not the only
Compatible
Can we contradict this? Contradicting this would mean saying that "glucose is the only sugar whose absence/scarcity causes muscle fatigue". Can we derive from the passage that glucose is the only sugar that affects muscle fatigue? Nope. The passage doesn't say anything that strong.
3% picked this
Correct
Problems caused by dehydration are
Why this is right
Can we contradict this? Contradicting a conditional always means saying, "it's possible the LEFT side is true but the RIGHT side isn't". From our paragraph, can we derive that it's possible that substances that delay muscle fatigue are consumed but problems caused by dehydration are not exacerbated? Sure, we're told with sugar / sugared beverages that 1. consuming them in small amounts delays muscle fatigue and 2. they can be helpful in avoiding dehydration So drinking small amounts of a sugared beverage (or drinking a lightly sugared beverage) can mean that you're consuming a substance that delays muscle fatigue, while doing something that helps you to avoid dehydration. Thus, we've contradicted the idea that consuming substances that delay muscle fatigue invariably exacerbates problems caused by dehydration.
Skill tested: Must be False · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
64% picked this
Dehydrated athletes find beverages containing
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: find them too sweet Because the paragraph never discusses the opinion of dehydrated athletes, whether sugary beverages are "too sweet / the right amount of sweet / not sweet enough", there's no way to contradict this.
13% picked this
Some situations that exacerbate the
Out of Scope: worsens muscle fatigue
We don't really hear about anything that sounds like "a situation that exacerbates the problems caused by muscle fatigue". We only hear about consuming small amounts of sugar, as a situation that lessens the likelihood of muscle fatigue. Contradicting this answer would be saying that "All situations that exacerbate muscle fatigue also exacerbate dehydration". Can we derive that claim from the paragraph? Heck no. Too extreme and we never talk about exacerbating muscle fatigue.
12% picked this
The rate at which the
Out of Scope: primary absorption factor
Can we contradict this answer? Does the passage tell us "the primary factor that determines the rate at which the body absorbs water"? It does not. So we have no way to contradict (E), which thinks that "water in the blood" is the primary factor.
8% 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