Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q9 Cereal advertisement: Fitness experts

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

Cereal advertisement: Fitness experts say that regular exercise is the most effective way to become physically fit, and studies have shown that adults who eat cereal every day exercise more regularly than adults who do not eat cereal.

Conclusion

By eating Fantastic Flakes every morning, you too will be on the most effective path to physical fitness.

Evidence

Regular exercise is the most effective way to become physically fit, and studies show that there's a correlation:

adults who eat | | exercise cereal every day more regularly

Evaluate

Whenever we see correlations on Flaw, we should be suspicious of the famous Causal flaw.

correlation language X is correlated with Y X is associated with Y most X's are Y X's tend to be Y ... and most commonly, people who are X are more likely to be Y

When you're told that people who are [cereal eaters] are more likely to be [regular exercisers], you know the author is going to overconfidently conclude that one of those causes the other.

In the conclusion, they are assuming that [eating cereal] is having a causal influence on [exercising regularly], because they're selling the idea of cereal as a path to fitness (by way of exercise).

Whenever we're presented with a correlation X || Y and the author concludes X --causes--> Y, consider these two alternate explanations: 1. Y --causes--> X 2. Some other factor, Z is really causing X and Y

Goal

On Flaw, we can just call out the illegal move that the author made from Correlation to Causation. We can raise the possibility of Reverse Causality (#1) or Third Factor (#2).

In this case, we also have incredibly loaded language in the Conclusion: the most effective path

We can certainly complain about the fact that the argument in no way justifies that it is better that all alternative paths.

9.

The argumentation in the advertisement is flawed in that it

  1. Correct

    infers a cause from a

    Why this is right

    Does the argument infer a causal relationship? Yes, it claims that eating cereal every day is a path to physical fitness. because it's assuming a causal connection from eating cereal to exercising regularly. Is the evidence a mere correlation? Yes. It just says "people who eat cereal are more likely to exercise regularly". Is there a problem with doing so? Yes. Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean that one is caused by the other. The fact that people who own BMW's are more likely to like fancy wine doesn't mean that owning a BMW caused them to like fancy wine.

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

    84% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Not an Assumption

    "Nutrition" was never brought up. The argument is endorsing Fantastic Flakes as a healthy choice on the basis of the idea that eating cereal every morning will make you more likely to exercise, not on the basis of nutrition. Since the conclusion claims that Fantastic Flakes would be "the most effective" path, we could say that the author presumes, w/o justification, that Fantastic Flakes are more likely to cause you to exercise than other cereals

    1% picked this

  3. infers that a given factor

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    Does the author conclude (or assume) that a certain factor is the sole predictor of a result? No, there's nothing that sounds as extreme as "X is the only influence on Y." We could eliminate there. If we kept reading, then we'd ask did the Evidence say that some factor has been shown to contribute to a result? Also, no. The evidence showed that some factor has been shown to be associated / correlated with some other factor / behavior. Only the conclusion was using causal language (X is the path to Y).

    12% picked this

  4. draws a conclusion about all

    Wrong Flaw

    This answer refers to the famous Sampling flaw. This argument was the famous Causal flaw. The conclusion is not about all adults (it sounds like it's about everyone), and the evidence is not a small sample size. It's a statistical connection that "studies have shown".

    0% picked this

  5. infers that some members of

    Wrong Flaw

    This answer refers to the famous Whole to Part flaw. This argument was the famous Causal flaw. The conclusion is not about "some members of a group having a characteristic".

    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.

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