Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT139 S1 Q9 Explanation

Doctor: It would benefit public

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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

Doctor: It would benefit public health if junk food were taxed. Not only in this country but in many other countries as well, the excessive proportion of junk food in people's diets contributes to many common and serious health problems. If junk food were much more to make dietary changes that would reduce these problems.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
9.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn in

Answer choices

  1. Correct88% picked this

    Taxing junk food would benefit public

    Why this is right

    This best paraphrases the argument’s main point.

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

  2. Premise0% picked this

    In many countries, the excessive proportion of junk food in people's diets contributes to many common

    This is the first premise of the argument.

  3. Premise6% picked this

    If junk food were much more expensive than healthful food, people would be encouraged to make dietary changes that would reduce many

    This is the second premise of the argument.

  4. Assumption4% picked this

    Taxing junk food would encourage people to reduce the proportion of junk food

    This is an assumption of the argument’s conclusion.

  5. Assumption2% picked this

    Junk food should be taxed if doing so would benefit

    This is an assumption of the argument’s conclusion.

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