Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q13 Medical researcher: Scientists compared

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

Medical researcher: Scientists compared a large group of joggers who habitually stretch before jogging to an equal number of joggers who do not stretch before jogging.

Conclusion

Stretching before jogging does not help to prevent injuries.

Evidence

Two large groups of joggers were compared. The members of one group habitually stretch before jogging, whereas the other group's members don't. Both groups had about the same number of injuries.

Evaluation

When he have an Anti-Causal conclusion like this, we're asking ourselves,

We could say that - the amount of jogging they did wasn't long enough, or on rugged-enough terrain, to showcase the protective benefits of stretching or - these two groups weren't fair to compare ... the stretching group would have had even more injuries if they hadn't stretched

Goal

Look for an answer that makes it seem like the amount/type of jogging in the study wasn't the right kind that would reveal the protective benefits of stretching, or an answer that makes the groups seem unfair to compare (different Initial Reference Points or Obstacles to Overcome)

13.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the medical researcher's argument?

  1. For both groups of joggers

    Too Weak

    This doesn't show any difference between the two groups. Because the rate of injuries in the study is lower than the average rate of jogging injuries in the population, we might try to interpret this answer as saying that the study wasn't an accurate rendering of jogging injuries. But that's a weak line of attack compared to the correct answer. The fact that the two groups had the same number of injuries still looks like a sign that stretching isn't making a difference (unless the # of injuries for both groups was essentially zero).

    4% picked this

  2. Among the joggers in the

    Too Weak

    If we found out that many people in the stretching group didn't stretch, that would taint the data. We would be like, "Well this isn't a fair way to measure the effects of stretching -- lots of the stretching group didn't even stretch!" But "Many experienced difficulty" doesn't mean that anyone in the stretching group didn't stretch. It just means they winced a little the way older people with frailer bodies often do when they're warming up their bodies.

    7% picked this

  3. Most jogging injuries result from

    Opposite

    This strengthens the idea that stretching does little to prevent jogging injuries, since most jogging injuries couldn't really be affected by stretching.

    14% picked this

  4. Correct

    The more prone a jogger

    Why this is right

    This allows us to point to a meaningful difference between the two groups: the stretching group was more prone to jogging injuries than the non-stretching group. If we re-read the wording of the study, it doesn't say that the experimenters took a large group of similar people and randomly assigned some to the stretching group and some to the non-stretching group. It allows for the possibility that the stretching group was self-selecting. This answer is helping us argue that "the stretching group was full of people who already knew they were prone to jogging injuries (the older or more frail or previously injured folks)". Imagine you saw a game of full-court basketball between some 40 year old dads and their 20 year old kids. The 40 year olds would all stretch, knowing they have gimpy backs and trick-knees, and such. The 20 year olds wouldn't bother stretching; their bodies still feel invincible. If the 40 year olds ended up incurring the same number of injuries as the 20 year olds, that would be a big win for the 40 year olds (who should be way more prone to injuries). That would suggest that stretching helped them. Similarly, if stretching before jogging is making these injury-prone joggers end up with the same number of injuries as the non-stretching healthier joggers, that's a win for stretching.

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

    64% picked this

  5. Studies have found that, for

    Out of Scope: "severity"

    The conclusion is about whether jogging helps to prevent injuries, not whether it helps to lessen the severity of injuries. Also, "for certain forms of exercise" needn't refer to jogging, so this answer would have very weak impact since it would only suggest that "maybe this applies to jogging".

    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