Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S2 · Q24 Between 1951 and 1963, it was illegal

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

Between 1951 and 1963, it was illegal in the country of Geronia to manufacture, sell, or transport any alcoholic beverages.

Conclusion (therefore)

The attempt to prevent alcohol use merely made people want and use alcohol more than they would have if it had not been forbidden.

Evidence

Between 1951 and 1963, Geronia made alcohol illegal.

The death rate from alcohol-related diseases was higher during the first 5 years of the period than during the five years prior to 1951.

Evaluate

The author is looking at this Curious Fact and wondering,

Her Explanation is that,

Goal

Any time we're weakening an Explain Curious Fact argument, we have two possible pressure points: 1. suggest an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact 2. make the Author's Explanation seem less plausible

So let's look for answers that give us a different way to explain why there were more alcohol deaths in 1951-1956 than there were in 1946-1951.

And let's look for answers that lower the plausibility that prohibition led to people drinking more than they otherwise would have.

24.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument except:

  1. Death from an alcohol-related disease

    Alternate Explanation

    This is letting us know that alcohol deaths from 1951-1956 aren't caused by excessive drinking during 1951-1956. They're caused by heavy drinking that occurred 5-10 years prior. So the deaths in 1951-1956 were caused by heaving drinking that occurred in the 1940s, before Prohibition. Thus, the author would be wrong to interpret the uptick in alcohol deaths in the early 1950s as a sign that people were drinking more in the early 1950s.

    8% picked this

  2. The diseases that can be

    Alternate Explanation

    This is suggesting that the deaths from "disease related to excessive alcohol consumption" can also be caused by other (non-alcohol related) behavior. This other behavior increased between 1951 and 1963. Thus, the author may be wrong to think that an uptick in deaths from these diseases in 1951-1956 is a signal that people were drinking more. This uptick in deaths could really be from an increase in those "other kinds of behavior" that can also lead to dying from these diseases.

    6% picked this

  3. The death rate resulting from

    Alternate Explanation

    This is suggesting that the death rate from alcohol-related diseases has a lot of volatility, unrelated to Prohibition. The author is looking at higher death rates from these diseases in 1951-1956 and blaming this on "Prohibition causing people to drink more". But this answer is saying we saw similar spikes in 1941 and in 1973, neither of which were during Prohibition. So it suggests that these upticks in deaths from alcohol-related diseases are cyclical or random, but not connected to Prohibition.

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    Many who died of alcohol-related

    Why this is right

    This doesn't really have any impact, which is why it's correct. It's talking about people dying from these alcohol-related diseases and saying that these people were consuming alcohol. So, if anything, it aligns with the author's argument.

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

    62% picked this

  5. Between 1951 and 1963, among

    Alternate Explanation

    This is suggesting that the reason deaths from alcohol related diseases went up from 1951-1956 isn't because people were drinking more during Prohibition. Rather, people were less inclined to seek medical help during Prohibition. If COVID rates stayed the same in a community, but community members stopped seeking medical help for COVID, then there would be an increase in deaths (because some deaths were no longer being averted by medical interventions). But that wouldn't mean that more people had COVID. This is saying that people were too ashamed to go to a doctor and say, "I have health problems from my alcohol consumption". They didn't get the medical assistance they needed, so they unnecessarily perished from those diseases.

    12% 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