Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S2 · Q2 Psychologist: A study of 436 university students

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

Psychologist: A study of 436 university students found that those who took short naps throughout the day suffered from insomnia more frequently than those who did not.

Evidence

A study of 436 university students found that those who took short naps throughout the day suffered from insomnia more frequently than those who did not.

Moreover, people who work on commercial fishing vessels often have irregular sleep patterns that include frequent napping, and they also suffer from insomnia.

Conclusion

So it is very likely that napping tends to cause insomnia.

Evaluate

The two premises provide a correlation between daytime napping and insomnia, while the conclusion asserts causation.

2.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope

    The correlation between napping and insomnia is identified by comparing students who suffer from insomnia with students who do not. The general population is not relevant to the argument.

    0% picked this

  2. presumes that all instances of

    Too Strong

    The argument does not go so far as asserting that all instances of insomnia are caused by napping.

    14% picked this

  3. fails to provide a scientifically

    Wrong Flaw

    The argument never confuses the meaning of the term "napping."

    0% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to consider the possibility

    Why this is right

    Correlation does not imply causation, and so while it is possible that napping causes insomnia, the reverse is also just as likely.

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

    85% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Wrong Flaw

    The second premise does not use a relative comparison, unlike the first premise. So the argument does not assume there is a regular sleep pattern for someone working on a commercial fishing vessel.

    0% 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