Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q9 In a medical study of all of

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

In a medical study of all of the residents of Groverhill, 35 people reported consulting their physician last year seeking relief from severe headaches.

Conclusion

Many residents who consulted physicians for severe headaches did not remember doing so.

Evidence

35 residents reported consulting their physician for severe headaches last year, but physicians' records show 105 consultations for severe headaches.

Evaluate

The argument equates "105 consultations" with "105 different residents." But one resident could have visited multiple times for the same condition. If the average resident with severe headaches went three times, only 35 distinct residents account for the 105 consultations — exactly matching the self-reported count, with nobody forgetting anything.

Goal

An answer pointing out that the same resident might have had multiple visits — i.e., the argument confuses number of consultations with number of patients.

9.

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

  1. generalizes inappropriately from an unrepresentative

    Sampling

    The argument is about all residents of Groverhill — the medical study covered the whole population, not a sample. There's no sampling flaw because there's no sampling.

    5% picked this

  2. fails to consider whether any

    Bad Objection

    Even if some residents visit out-of-town physicians, that wouldn't produce the 105-consultation figure. The 105 number comes from "those same physicians' records" — i.e., the physicians the residents consulted. So out-of-town visits aren't inflating the consultation count, and pointing them out doesn't expose the argument's flaw.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    overlooks the possibility that residents

    Why this is right

    This is the flaw exactly. The argument treats 105 consultations as 105 different patients, then notes only 35 patients self-reported, and concludes 70 must have forgotten. But if one patient can have multiple consultations for the same condition, then 35 distinct patients could easily account for all 105 visits — with nobody forgetting anything. The argument overlooks this alternative explanation.

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

    86% picked this

  4. fails to provide any evidence

    Bad Description

    The argument doesn't claim Groverhill has unusually high headache rates. It just notes a discrepancy between self-reports and records. The argument doesn't need to support a comparative claim about headache prevalence.

    1% picked this

  5. takes for granted that every

    Bad Assumption

    The argument doesn't assume every resident with severe headaches consults a physician. The 35-vs-105 discrepancy is about people who did consult — the argument is silent on those who didn't. Even if some headache sufferers don't see a doctor, the argument's flawed reasoning about the 35 vs. 105 numbers stays the same.

    3% 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