Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S2 · Q16 Some heartburn-medication advertisements

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

Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.

Conclusion

Unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. (The author signals this by saying "This is simply false" in response to the advertisers' implication.)

Evidence

Only about 5 percent of people with severe heartburn have Barrett's esophagus, and only those people have an increased risk of developing cancer because of heartburn.

Evaluate

The first sentence reports what some heartburn-medication ads imply (the opposing position). The second sentence ("This is simply false") is the author's rebuttal — the main conclusion. The remainder of the stimulus supports that rebuttal: only a small subset of heartburn sufferers face elevated cancer risk, so heartburn-as-cancer-cause is rare, not the norm.

Goal

Find an answer that paraphrases the rebuttal: it is not the case that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer. Avoid answers that paraphrase the supporting evidence (Barrett's esophagus details) or the opposing claim being rebutted.

16.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?

  1. Only those people with Barrett's

    Premise

    This is one of the supporting facts, not the conclusion. The author is using the Barrett's-esophagus restriction to back up the rebuttal — to explain why heartburn is not likely to cause cancer. It's the evidence, not the main point.

    17% picked this

  2. An increase in the risk

    Premise

    This describes the mechanism by which Barrett's esophagus increases cancer risk — biological background that supports the author's evidence. It's a sub-detail of the supporting facts, even further from the main conclusion than choice A.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    Unrelieved heartburn is not likely

    Why this is right

    This is the rebuttal — the author's main point. The ads imply heartburn is likely to cause cancer; the author says "This is simply false" and supports the rebuttal with the Barrett's-esophagus statistic. "Unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer" is a direct paraphrase of "This is simply false" applied to the ads' claim.

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

    69% picked this

  4. Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that

    Opposing Idea

    This restates the position the author is rebutting — what the heartburn-medication ads imply. The author's actual conclusion is the opposite: that this implication is false. Picking this answer would mean attributing the ads' claim to the author.

    1% picked this

  5. The dangers touted by heartburn-medication

    Unstated Inference

    This is plausible given the stimulus (if cancer-from-heartburn is rare, the ads' fearmongering applies to few of their viewers), but the author never says it. The main conclusion is about whether the ads' implication is true, not about how many people the implied danger affects. The author argues "the implication is false," not "the implication only applies to a few people."

    10% 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