Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S1 · Q20 Medical reporter: Studies have consistently

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 reporter: Studies have consistently found that taking an aspirin a day thins the blood slightly, thereby helping to prevent or reduce the severity of heart disease.

Conclusion (therefore)

Most people in industrialized nations would be in better health if they took an aspirin a day.

Evidence (since)

Heart disease is one of the most common illnesses in industrialized nations, and taking an aspirin a day reduces the severity of heart disease.

Evaluate

We could think of this as a Plan / Goal, or a Prediction. How could we follow this Plan (most people take an aspirin a day) but not achieve the Goal (better health)?

Theoretically we'd have a lower risk of heart disease. But maybe taking an aspirin a day has some negative outcomes that would offset that, so we wouldn't be left in better health overall?

We know that it would thin our blood slightly, so maybe there are some downsides to havin thing blood?

Goal

Look for an answer that helps us argue that in a world where most people in industrialized nations took one aspirin a day, they wouldn't end up in better health.

20.

The reasoning in the doctor's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. It takes for granted that

    Bad Assumption

    Since it starts with takes for granted / presumes, we analyze it like Necessary Assumption. When we see conditionals on Necessary Assumption, we ask ourselves whether the author made this reasoning move. Did the author go from establishing that some medication can reduce the severity of heart disease to then assuming / concluding that it can prevent heart disease? No. The author told us that studies have shown that aspirin both prevents and reduces severity of heart disease. There was no reasoning move from one to the other. The author just presented a factual premise that aspirin does both.

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    It overlooks the possibility that

    Why this is right

    Since it starts with fails to consider / overlooks possibility, we analyze it like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey author -- even though heart disease is one of the most common diseases in industrialized nations, most people in those nations aren't in any significant danger of developing that disease?" Yes! We can basically argue that the author's Plan would have all these people taking an aspirin a day, but they wouldn't actually get any benefit out of it. If they're not at any significant risk of heart disease, then taking something to prevent or reduce the severity of heart disease doesn't really benefit them. In the U.S., we're not at any significant risk of getting malaria, so if we all took anti-malarial medication every day, it wouldn't put us in better health.

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

    69% picked this

  3. It overlooks the possibility that

    No Impact

    Since it starts with fails to consider / overlooks possibility, we analyze it like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey author -- the aspirin might lead to less heart disease, but that wouldn't affect any other diseases!" Not really. The author wasn't ever promising that aspirin would help with other diseases. If aspirin helps us with heart disease (and doesn't cause bad things to happen to us), then it would have put us in better health, even if our risk of all other diseases is still the same.

    14% picked this

  4. It fails to address the

    Irrelevant Comparison

    Since it starts with fails to consider / overlooks possibility, we analyze it like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey author -- there's a more effective means of preventing heart disease than taking one aspirin per day"? No. The author was never ranking methods. Her conclusion is only about whether this method would improve us. It's not claiming that this method improves us more than any other method could.

    10% picked this

  5. It fails to address the

    No Impact

    Since it starts with fails to consider / overlooks possibility, we analyze it like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey author -- these studies were only conducted in industrialized nations!" That might hurt if the author were then extrapolating to non-industrialized nations, but the conclusion is still only about people in industrialized nations, so it's not problematic that the studies only took place in those nations.

    2% 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