Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S2 · Q16 Tissue biopsies taken on

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

Tissue biopsies taken on patients who have undergone throat surgery show that those who snored frequently were significantly more likely to have serious abnormalities in their throat muscles than those who snored rarely or not at all.

Conclusion

Snoring can damage the snorer's throat

Evidence

Patients who snored frequently were more likely to have serious throat muscle abnormalities than those who didn't snore as much.

Evaluation

This argument highlights the classic Correlation to Causality move. The author takes a Curious Fact: why is there a correlation between snoring and throat abnormalities? and assumes a Causal Explanation that one side of the correlation causes the other: snoring causes the throat abnormalities.

We always deal with causal arguments by asking ourselves: - How else could we explain this curious fact? - How could we better assess the plausibility of the author's hypothesis?

Goal

Since we're strengthening, we either need to Rule Out a different way to explain the Curious Fact (e.g. / ) or to boost the plausibility of the author's hypothesis (e.g. / )

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

The study relied on the
If Anything, Weakens
Self-reporting is far from the most trustworthy type of data gathering, so if anything this would just make us have more qualms about the study being relied on.
1% picked this
The patients' throat surgery was
No Impact
Why they had the surgery won't clear up the causal connection (if any) between snoring and throat abnormalities.
9% picked this
All of the test subjects
Too Weak
This is better than nothing, but not as powerful as the correct answer. This helps us to eliminate some other possible alternate explanations in the data by making the subjects seem pretty fair to compare.
11% picked this
People who have undergone throat
No Impact
This rules out the idea that throat surgery is a cause of snoring, but we were never worried about that. - first of all, everyone in this study had throat surgery, so that wouldn't possibly be an explanation for why some of them snore but others don't. - the snoring was presumably something these patients already had before they came in for throat surgery
9% picked this
Correct
The abnormalities in the throat
Why this is right
Yup, this just Rules Out the reverse causality explanation we considered (What if having a throat abnormality is what causes you to snore?) When an author assumes from a correlation between X and Y that X causes Y, we want to always consider the possibility that Y causes X (or that a related factor Z is really the causal agent). When we're strengthening correlation-to-causality arguments, one way to do so is by ruling out reverse causality or ruling out some third factor that is really the cause.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% 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