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
Regular drinkers of camellia tea are more likely than people in general to develop kidney damage.
Regular consumption of this tea, therefore, can result in a heightened risk of kidney damage.
The argument fails to establish the purported causal relationship. It merely ascertains a correlation between drinking camellia tea and the development of kidney damage.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Several other popular beverages contain
The addictive nature of camellia tea is not relevant to the conclusion that camellia tea causes kidney damage.
1% picked this
Addictive chemicals are unlikely to
The argument does not claim that the addictive chemicals in camellia tea cause kidney damage.
2% picked this
Some people claim that regular
Alleviating stress is not relevant to whether camellia tea causes kidney damage.
0% picked this
Most people who regularly drink
The evidence established that people who drink camellia tea are more likely than those who do not to develop kidney damage, but that still leaves room for most drinkers of camellia tea not to develop kidney damage.
20% picked this
Many people who regularly consume
Why this is right
This provides a possible alternative cause of kidney damage and thereby makes it a bit less likely that camellia tea is the cause.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.