Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S1 · Q5 Journalist: A recent study showed

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

Journalist: A recent study showed that people who drink three cups of decaffeinated coffee per day are twice as likely to develop arthritis—inflammation of joints resulting from damage to connective tissue—as those who drink three cups of regular coffee per day.

Conclusion (clearly)

Decaffeinated coffee must contain something that isn't present in regular coffee that damages connective tissue.

Evidence

In a study, people who drink 3 cups of decaf every day were twice as likely to develop arthritis as people who drink 3 cups of regular coffee per day.

Evaluate

Any time the author's conclusion is stating or assuming a causal explanation for the results of a study, we go into Explain Curious Fact mode.

Curious Fact ... How come people who drink 3 cups of decaf are twice as likely to get arthritis, compared to people who drink 3 cups of regular?

Author's Explanation ... There is a special ingredient in decaf, not in regular, that damages connective tissue, which leads to the arthritic inflammation of joints.

We're always supposed to consider 1. Alternate Explanations for the curious fact 2. the plausibility of the Author's Explanation

Any time we're given a correlation between x and y (in this case between decaf and arthritis), there are two automatic alternate explanations we want to consider:

- could it be Reverse Causality? is it possible that the arthritis came first, and since the arthritis made it harder to grasp the coffee mug securely, those people switched to decaf so they wouldn't have the shaky hands a caffeinated person might have? The problem with that storyline here is that the correlation seems to have a built in before/after. It says that the people drinking decaf are more likely to develop arthritis (in the future). If it said they were more likely to have arthritis, then we could definitely consider this reverse causality angle.

- could there be a Third Factor that is the real causal agent, and the two parts of the correlation are just symptoms of that third factor? is it possible that "old age" is the common ingredient? If older people are more likely to drink decaf and more likely to develop arthritis, then that would explain why decaf and arthritis are correlated, but it wouldn't be decaf causing the arthritis.

When it comes to the plausibility of the author's story, she has to assume that the process of decaffeinated coffee involves adding some new ingredient. If it's only removing caffeine, then decaf and regular coffee are chemically the same, other than caffeine, and so her story would make no sense.

Goal

Let's look for answer that either allows us to argue that there's an Alternate Explanation for why decaf is correlated with higher rates of arthritis, or one that deals with the plausibility of the author's storyline that decaf has a special ingredient that damages connective tissue.

5.

Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the journalist's argument?

  1. whether people who exercise regularly

    Unclear Impact

    This answer is tempting, because it's potentially identifying a Third Factor. Exercising regularly is correlated with decaf, so could it be that exercising regularly is really what's causing the higher rates of arthritis? This is definitely worth keeping on a first pass, but is there a good common sense connection between "regular exercise" and "developing arthritis"? Does regular exercise damage connective tissue? It really depends on the exercise, which is why ultimately it's unclear what impact this has. Running or playing basketball on hard surfaces is probably damaging to joints, but swimming or yoga presumably is not (and may even strengthen connective tissue).

    16% picked this

  2. whether people who drink decaffeinated

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The study controlled for how much coffee was consumed by the participants. Both the decaf drinkers and the regular drinkers were consuming 3 cups per day. So we can't devise an alternate explanation for these study results that involves different amounts of consumption.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    whether the degeneration of connective

    Why this is right

    This presents an Alternate Explanation for why the decaf drinkers were twice as likely as the regular coffee drinker to develop arthritis: it's not (as the author is concluding) that decaf contains something bad that increases your likelihood of getting arthritis, it's that regular coffee contains something good (caffeine, which is not in decaf) that decreases your likelihood of getting arthritis. This is a tricky alternate explanation, because the coffee is still the causal reason for the difference in arthritis risk, but saying that "caffeinated coffee has an ingredient that helps to discourage arthritis" is a different explanation than "decaf coffee has an ingredient that helps to encourage arthritis. If you want to try a similar problem with that sort of trick, try this one.

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

    72% picked this

  4. whether most coffee drinkers drink

    Irrelevant

    It doesn't matter whether at least 51% of coffee drinkers drink more than 3 cups a day, or whether it's only 49% at most that drink more than 3 cups a day. Neither one of those has any effect on us judging whether or not decaf has an ingredient that damages connective tissue.

    1% picked this

  5. whether people who have arthritis

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The study controlled for how much coffee was consumed by the participants. Both the decaf drinkers and the regular drinkers were consuming 3 cups per day. So this answer can't possibly offer us an alternate explanation for the study results. If an answer said, "Whether people who have arthritis are advised by their doctors to avoid decaf coffee" that would be somewhat relevant, because it would increase the plausibility that there is something chemically dangerous about decaf when it comes to arthritis.

    6% 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