Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT127 S3 Q4 Explanation

The manufacturers of NoSmoke claim

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

TopicsFlaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

The manufacturers of NoSmoke claim that their product reduces smokers' cravings for cigarettes. However, in a recent study, smokers given the main ingredient in NoSmoke reported no decrease in cravings for cigarettes. Thus, since NoSmoke has only two ingredients, if similar results can conclude that NoSmoke does not reduce smokers' cravings.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

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

The question
4.

The argument above is flawed in

Answer choices

  1. Correct86% picked this

    illicitly presumes that a whole must lack a certain quality if all of its parts

    Why this is right

    The author assumes that if each of the two ingredients in NoSmoke fail to reduce cravings, then NoSmoke as a whole must fail to reduce cravings. This answer correctly describes the author's illegal Part to Whole move.

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

  2. Trap4% picked this

    confuses a mere correlation with a

    Not Correlation vs. Causation / Bad Conclusion Match The author is concluding that NoSmoke does not cause a reduction in cravings, so we definitely can't accuse her of inferring causality based on a correlation.

  3. Trap2% picked this

    relies on a sample that is likely to

    Not Sampling / Too Strong: "likely to be representative" The author does introduce a study, which is a sample of sorts. However, we have no information about the study (how many people were tested? how diverse/representative?). When LSAT wants us to criticize the sample for being too small or biased in some way, they give us something to go off of. We have no way to say this study is likely to be unrepresentative.

  4. Out of Scope7% picked this

    overlooks the possibility that NoSmoke helps people to quit smoking in ways other than by reducing

    Out of Scope: "other than reducing cravings" Does it weaken the argument if we learn that NoSmoke helps people quit in some other way? Not at all. The author wasn't concluding, "Thus, NoSmoke is useless for helping people quit smoking". She more narrowly claimed, "Thus, NoSmoke doesn't reduce cravings".

  5. Not Ad Hominem / Bad Premise Match0% picked this

    illicitly presumes that a claim must be false because the people making the

    This refers to the famous flaw Ad Hominem, but our author doesn't invalidate NoSmoke's claims by pointing to the biased interests of the people claiming it. She tries to invalidate their claims by pointing to studies that seem to undermine the claim.

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