Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S2 · Q8 Though ice cream

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

Though ice cream is an excellent source of calcium, dairy farmers report that during the past ten years there has been a sharp decline in ice cream sales.

Conclusion

More and more people are choosing get calcium from cheddar cheese rather than ice cream.

Evidence

Over the last ten years, sales of ice cream have gone way down, sales of cheddar cheese have doubled.

Evaluation

From a correlation between ice cream going down and cheddar cheese going up, the author is convinced that they are causally related phenomenon. People switched away from ice cream to cheddar cheese, as a means of switching where they get their calcium boost.

These two phenomena might be completely coincidental. Perhaps the sales of bacon went up over the last ten years as well. Should we conclude that ?

Goal

Look for an answer that calls out the bad correlation to causality move, or one that raises a possible alternate explanation for why ice cream lost steam while cheddar got better. (sorry, couldn't resist)

8.

The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. fails to produce statistical evidence

    Opposite

    The evidence is statistical evidence about sales declines and surges.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to consider alternative explanations

    Why this is right

    The fundamental idea of the Causal Flaw is that the author is over-confidently arriving at one possible causal explanation when other possibilities surely exist. This answer just acknowledges that.

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

    85% picked this

  3. relies solely on the testimony

    Bad Premise Match

    Is the evidence "testimony of individuals"? Not at all, it's sales statistics. This answer just describes the Famous Sampling Flaw, as though it's watching a different movie than the one we just watched.

    1% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: "better source of calcium" The author is never evaluating whether switching from ice cream to cheddar is a good or bad thing, so she's not assuming anything about the superiority of ice cream to cheddar cheese or vice versa. She's only making a descriptive causal argument, no judgment.

    1% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong

    The author certainly hasn't committed herself to the assumption that anyone who eats cheddar cheese never eats ice cream.

    12% 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