Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT135 S1 Q1 Explanation

In a recent study of more

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

TopicsStrengthen

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

In a recent study of more than 400 North American men and women whose previous heart attack put them at risk for a second heart attack, about half were told to switch to a "Mediterranean-type diet"—one rich in fish, vegetables, olive oil, and grains—while the other half were advised to eat a diet may not have to be extremely low in fat in order to protect the heart.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion more likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes it.

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

The question
1.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens

Answer choices

  1. No Impact2% picked this

    Research has shown that eliminating almost all fat from one's diet can be effective in decreasing the likelihood

    This states that eliminating almost all fat can also be effective in reducing heart attack risk. It doesn’t support the idea that the Mediterranean diet, despite not being low in fat, protects the heart, so it neither strengthens nor weakens the argument.

  2. Correct94% picked this

    Studies suggest that the kinds of oils in included in the Mediterranean diet may protect the heart against potentially fatal disruptions of heart rhythms

    Why this is right

    This supports the plausibility of causal assumption that the diet itself contributes to heart health. It strengthens the argument by offering a mechanism for the diet's protective effects.

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

  3. No Impact (enjoyment)2% picked this

    The patients who consumed the Mediterranean diet enjoyed the food and continued to follow the diet after

    This discusses how much the participants enjoyed the food, which is unrelated to the diet's impact on heart health and doesn’t affect the causal argument.

  4. Unclear Impact1% picked this

    Many people who have had heart attacks are advised by their cardiologists to begin an exercise regimen in

    This mentions that many heart attack patients are advised to exercise, which could either support or weaken the argument depending on which group exercised more. The impact is unclear due to the lack of specific information on who exercised.

  5. No Impact1% picked this

    Some cardiologists believe that the protection afforded by the Mediterranean diet might be enhanced by drugs

    This highlights that protection might be enhanced by drugs, introducing factors outside the diet itself. It doesn't directly address how the Mediterranean diet alone affects heart health.

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