Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S2 · Q2 Depression is a serious problem

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

Depression is a serious problem for residents of nursing homes.

Information

Depression is a big problem for nursing home residents.

Pivot (however)

In a recent study, residents who had bonds with pets had significantly lower rates of depression than did residents who didn't develop a bond with a pet.

Evaluate

When an Inference stimulus Ends with a Pivot, it's a strong clue that the inference the correct answer is testing is whatever idea we can safely derive by combining that Pivot idea with what came before it.

What do you get by combining: residents of nursing homes struggle with depression + in a study, residents who had pet-love had way less depression than did residents without pet-love?

Goal

Let's look for a safely worded takeaway that sounds something like, .

Or the answer could give a trickier version of that, like, .

2.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?

  1. Nursing-home residents are more subject

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: more than any Relative vs. Absolute The passage doesn't support the incredibly extreme claim that nursing home residents are the #1 depressed group in the world. There could easily be other groups that are more subject to depression (f.e. people serving lifetime prison sentences, or soldiers irreparably wounded in battle). There are two famous traps involved here. Relative vs. Absolute The passage only tells us in yes/no language that nursing home residents are depressed. That doesn't give us any support for making comparative judgments about whether they're more / less depressed than other groups. Only Thing Mentioned = Only / #1 Thing I might tell you that 4th graders love video games based around ninjas. The fact that I only mentioned 4th graders loving those ninja games does not mean that only 4th graders love ninja video games or that 4th graders love ninja video games more than other people.

    1% picked this

  2. The best method for helping

    Too Strong: best

    We have no support for the extreme claim that "pets are the best method for overcoming depression". Maybe meds are better. Maybe meditation or hypnosis is better. We weren't given any comparisons. Just like (A), this is making a huge leap from "the only method for helping depression that we mentioned was bonding with pets" to "the #1 method for helping depression is bonding with pets".

    11% picked this

  3. Correct

    High rates of depression among

    Why this is right

    Such lovable, soft wording! "X may result at least in part from Y". This is just saying, "It's possible that lack of companionship plays at least some nonzero role in the high rates of depression among nursing-home residents". That is suggested by the fact that residents who form personal bonds (i.e. companionship) with pets have way lower rates of depression. Some of us may be thinking 1. how do we know that the correlation between bonds-with-pets and depression indicates that the bond caused the lessening of depression? (Reverse Causality -- Maybe you have to be not-depressed in order to even be able to bond with pets / Third Factor -- Maybe pet bonding and lower rates of depression are both symptoms of being a well-adjusted person who lived a good life) 2. Even if it is the case that having a pet causes a nursing home resident to have less depression, how do we know that the causal mechanism there is alleviating a lack of companionship? These are both valid questions. We don't know for sure the answers to those questions. But since this is Most Supported, we're not demanding an answer that is perfectly provable. We're on the sliding scale of Best Available answer, and it's hard to make the case that any of these other answers would be easier to defend in court.

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

    82% picked this

  4. Animal companionship is essential for

    Too Strong: essential

    Another answer that goes way too far in the correct direction. This answer, like (B) and (C), assumes that the pets are causing the nursing home residents to be less depressed. But like (B), and unlike (C), this says something way too strong for us to defend: you cannot have psychological well-being without animal companionship.

    3% picked this

  5. Allowing free access to pets

    Too Strong: eliminate

    Just like (B), (C), and (D), this answer assumes that the pets cause the residents to be less depressed. And like (B) and (D), but unlike (C), it uses wording that is way too extreme. We can't say that allowing pets would eliminate problems relating to depression. There would be zero occurrences of depression, if there were just free access to pets? That's way too hyperbolic.

    3% 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