Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S4 · Q7 The number of hospital emergency room

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

The number of hospital emergency room visits by heroin users grew by more than 25 percent during the 1980s.

Conclusion (clearly then)

The use of heroin rose during the 1980s.

Evidence

The number of hospital emergency room visits by heroin users grew by more than 25 percent during the 1980s.

Evaluate

This looks like a pretty simple missing link to prephrase.

PREM: during 80's, ER visits by heroin users increased. CONC: during 80's, heroin use increased.

We just need to get from "more ER visits" to "more heroin use".

Goal

Look for an answer like, "If more ER visits, then more heroin use".

If an answer isn't talking about "heroin use", it's useless to us, since that is a New Concept in the Conclusion that needs to be in the correct answer.

7.

The author’s conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Those who seek medical care

    Bad Evidence Match

    This informs us that most of the ER visits discussed in the evidence involved people who had been addicted for a while. Does that guarantee that more people were using heroin in the late 80's than in the early 80's? Not at all. It could be that we have the same number of heroin users, and that there are 25% more ER visits in the late 80's because those heroin users are now late-stage addicts, more prone to needing medical care. So this could almost weaken as an alternate explanation for why there were more ER visits in the late 80's (the early 80's addicts had now been addicts long enough to start suffering the health problems of late stage addiction).

    0% picked this

  2. Many heroin users visit hospital

    Bad Evidence Match

    If many users visit the ER repeatedly, that's could mean that there are more visits to the ER, even though there's no increase in the number of users. So this would potentially provide a way to weaken, by offering an alternate explanation for the uptick in number of ER visits.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    The number of visits to

    Why this is right

    This perfectly connects the evidence (number of ER visits) to the conclusion (heroin usage). If the number of ER visits by heroin users is proportional to the incidence of heroin use, then a 25% rise in ER visits guarantees a corresponding rise in heroin use.

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

    89% picked this

  4. The methods of using heroin

    Bad Evidence Match

    This isn't talking about a change that happened during the 1980's, but one that happened since 1980. It's saying our modern methods of using heroin are less dangerous than the methods of 1980.

    1% picked this

  5. Users of heroin identify themselves

    Bad Evidence Match

    We don't care whether they identify themselves as heroin users or whether the medical professionals later deduce that on their own. We know there are 25% more ER visits from heroin users, however it is we got that information. But this doesn't tell us whether more ER visits definitively means more heroin use.

    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.

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