Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S1 · Q20 A recent study suggests 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

Start practicing free

A recent study suggests that consuming three glasses of wine daily substantially decreases the risk of stroke.

Conclusion

Drinking three glasses of wine daily would not benefit health overall.

Evidence (since)

The decrease in the risk of stroke associated with that level of consumption is negated by its associated increased risk of sudden heart attack.

A recent study said that consuming three glasses of wine daily substantially decreases risk of stroke.

But ... the people who are most likely to drink three glasses in one day are binge drinkers, who are more likely to die from sudden heart attacks than are other drinkers.

Evaluate

Given that ... the people who are most likely to drink three glasses of wine in a day are binge drinkers, who are more likely to die from sudden heart attacks,

How could we still argue that ... drinking three glasses of wine daily would benefit health overall?

This is a weird argument, because it's shooting down a plan by saying that the people who are most likely to currently be abiding by the plan have some risk factor associated with them. But would the plan be good for people who don't have that risk factor?

Suppose I said, and someone said, .

We'd be like ... okay, but the lifespan of military people isn't lower because of the exercise. It's because of the hazards of being in the military. If Jane Doe were to adopt the exercise plan without enlisting in the military, wouldn't it benefit her health?

Similarly, the reason binge drinkers are more likely to die of sudden heart attacks isn't because they drink 3 glasses of wine in one day. It's because they go on all out benders and drink themselves to within an inch of alcohol poisoning, slowly corroding their livers.

If Jane Doe were to adopt the 3 glasses of wine a day plan, without becoming a binge drinker, wouldn't it still benefit her health?

Goal

Look for an answer objecting that the critics are shooting down the claim that "X benefits health" by saying .

20.

The critics' argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. Correct

    inappropriately attributes the consequences of

    Why this is right

    The critics' premise is saying, "Sure, 3 glasses of wine a day would help decrease your risk of stroke. But it wouldn't benefit your health overall because you'd be more likely to die from sudden heart attacks." Where did it ever say that 3 glasses of wine increases your risk of sudden heart attacks? It didn't. It just said that binge drinkers have a higher risk of sudden heart attack (but not because they drink 3 glasses of wine daily). If the author is acting like "that level of consumption (3 wine / day) is associated with an increased risk of sudden heart attack", then he is attributing a consequence of binge drinking (higher risk of heart attack) to this separate plan of drinking 3 glasses of wine per day. They don't have anything to do with each other. Someone could drink 3 glasses of wine per day, and not binge drink, and they would presumably get the decreased risk of stroke without getting any increased risk of sudden heart attack. (Technically, the argument never said that the increased risk of heart attack was a consequence of binge drinking, so this answer is not perfect, but it's the best available and sounds the most like our complaint.)

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

    71% picked this

  2. confuses the risk of sudden

    Doesn't Confuse Risks

    The author isn't confusing one risk with another. He is comparing a decreased health risk (less chance of stroke) with an increased health risk (higher chance of sudden heart attack). He is definitely assuming that for someone who has both the decreased risk of stroke and the increased risk of heart attack, that the positive is completely offset by the negative, but he isn't confusing one type of risk with another.

    6% picked this

  3. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: no difference

    Since this answer begins with presumes / takes for granted / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves whether this answer truly is a Necessary Assumption. The critics don't need to assume that wine is not significantly different from other alcoholic beverages. They are fine with believing that wine is significantly different. In fact, their argument seems to acknowledge that wine does have special benefits (consuming 3 glasses a day can decrease the risk of stroke). The critics are merely saying that the benefit that wine drinking would provide would be negated by an increased risk of heart attack, and so there isn't any net gain to health overall.

    7% picked this

  4. fails to address specifically the

    Not a Reasoning Objection

    We're fine with hearing that 3 glasses a day would confer a substantial decrease in risk. We don't need to know whether it's specifically 37% or 42%, in order to assess the logic of this argument. Answers that are complaining that we didn't get a specific measurement, a specific statistic, or the specific names of people who may have been alluded to in the argument are almost always wrong. It's practically never the case that a missing number / name / definition is what creates a reasoning flaw.

    15% picked this

  5. overlooks the difference between strokes

    Irrelevant Distinction

    Yes, the author does fail to discuss distinctions between those two types of strokes, but that distinction doesn't make any difference to the argument. The argument is about whether 3 glasses of wine per day would benefit health. The reason some think it would benefit health is that such a routine would substantially decrease the risk of stroke. Which kinds of stroke? The fatal kind, the non-fatal kind, or both? Presumably both kinds, but it doesn't really matter. Decreasing your risk of any kind of stroke still qualifies as a health benefit, and that's all that matters to the logic of this argument.

    1% 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