Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S1 · Q1 In a recent study of more

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

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 more traditional "Western" diet but to limit their fat intake.

Conclusion (so)

A diet can protect the heart even though it is not low in fat.

Evidence

Mediterranean diet has a good bit of fat, but meanwhile a study showed that people on a Mediterranean diet were less likely to have a second heart attack compared to those on a Western diet limiting fat.

Evaluate

This is the Explain Curious Fact template, because the author presents a non-causal comparison in the evidence and interprets a causal relationship from it.

CURIOUS FACT - why were the people following the Med Diet significantly less likely to have a second heart attack than those on a diff diet?

EXPLANATION - the Med Diet was protecting their heart

Goal

To strengthen the argument, we can either rule out alternate explanations for why people on the Med Diet were less likely to have a 2nd heart attack, or increase the plausibility of the causal relationship between the Med Diet and the lower heart attack risk.

1.

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

  1. Research has shown that eliminating

    No Impact

    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% picked this

  2. Correct

    Studies suggest that the kinds

    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.

    94% picked this

  3. The patients who consumed the

    No Impact (enjoyment)

    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.

    2% picked this

  4. Many people who have had

    Unclear Impact

    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.

    1% picked this

  5. Some cardiologists believe that the

    No Impact

    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.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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