Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT140 S2 Q16 Explanation

Some heartburn-medication advertisements

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

Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer. This is simply false. The fact is that only about 5 percent of people with severe heartburn have a condition called Barrett's esophagus, in which cells similar to those in the stomach's lining develop an increased risk of developing cancer because of heartburn.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

Conclusion

The author's point is straightforward: those heartburn-medication ads are wrong — heartburn doesn't typically cause esophageal cancer.

Evidence

The reason is statistical: only about 5% of severe heartburn sufferers have Barrett's esophagus, and those are the only people whose heartburn raises their cancer risk. So the cancer-from-heartburn link applies to a small subset, not to heartburn sufferers in general.

Evaluate

The trick on Main Conclusion questions is to identify the author's own claim — what they are arguing for — and not confuse it with (a) the position they are rebutting or (b) the evidence they are using to make their case.

Here, the opposing position comes from the ads: heartburn is likely to cause cancer. The author rebuts that with a flat "This is simply false." The Barrett's esophagus statistic is the support, not the conclusion. The main point is: the ads are wrong, heartburn does not typically lead to cancer.

Goal

Pick the answer that says, in some form,

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

The question
16.

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

Answer choices

  1. Premise17% picked this

    Only those people with Barrett's esophagus can suffer an increased risk of developing

    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.

  2. Premise3% picked this

    An increase in the risk of esophageal cancer arises from cells similar to those in the stomach's lining

    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. Correct70% picked this

    Unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause

    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.

  4. Opposing Idea1% picked this

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

    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.

  5. Unstated Inference9% picked this

    The dangers touted by heartburn-medication advertisements will affect relatively few of the people who

    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."

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