Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q22 A recent study revealed that

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

A recent study revealed that people who follow precisely all the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by pathogenic microorganisms in meat-based foods are more likely to contract diseases caused by these pathogens than are those who deviate considerably from the standard recommendations.

Conclusion (hence)

The standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by these pathogens must be counterproductive (i.e. the advice being given is actually leading to more infections).

Evidence

People who precisely follow the recommendations are more likely to contract diseases caused by these pathogens than are people who deviate considerably from them.

Evaluate

Does the fact that the rule-followers are worse off than the rule-disobeyers show that the rule sucks?

This feels a bit like an Anti-Causal type of argument. The author's conclusion is like, (that part makes it slightly causal in the reverse direction).

How do we object to Anti-Causal arguments? Usually, we point out that the two groups aren't actually fair to compare, the way the author is doing so.

For example, let's say . Does that show that seat belts only worsen your chances of getting injured in a car crash?

Not necessarily. Maybe the group of people who regularly follow seatbelt laws are a much higher-risk group: they commute every day, on the highway, so they are routinely driving at higher speeds with more likelihood of injury. Meanwhile, maybe the group of people who regularly don't wear their seatbelt live in rural towns and drive 25-35mph on lonely roads.

So we could probably object to the author's conclusion here with a similar move.

Goal

Look for something like, .

This is kind of like the idea that people who are extremely sensitive to getting sick might wash their hands more than others but still get sick more than others (does that show washing hands is counterproductive?)

22.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to take into account which one of the following possibilities?

Pathogenic microorganisms can reproduce in
Out of Scope: not meat-based
We're only talking about the pathogens in meat. When the conclusion says "the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by these pathogens", she's referring to the aforementioned pathogens in meat-based foods. Any other type of pathogen is irrelevant to the conversation about whether the standard advice for meat is leading to more infections from meat-based pathogens.
7% picked this
Many people do follow precisely
No Impact
Yes, we already know this. The evidence talks about people who follow precisely all the standard recommendations (vs. people who deviate considerably). So we already knew that many people precisely follow all the recommendations. We can't weaken an argument by reiterating something we know.
3% picked this
Not all diseases caused by
Too Broad / Too Weak
Always translate "Not all A's are B" into "Some A's are ~B". This answer is saying, there is at least one disease caused by a microorganism that does not have easily recognizable symptoms. Cool? Not only is this answer insanely weak, we have no idea if the disease / microorganism combo they're referring to is related to meat in any way.
3% picked this
Preventing infection by pathogenic microorganisms
Strengthens, if anything
The author would probably agree with this answer, so it's definitely not weakening her argument. She thinks the standard recommendations are not an appropriate set of recommendations, since she feels that they are making the infection situation worse. This answer helps to support her judgment --- it's saying, if the recommendations were appropriate, then that would be all it took to prevent infection.
4% picked this
Correct
Those most concerned with avoiding
Why this is right
This gives us the classic "these two groups are not fair to compare" objection to Anti-Causal arguments. Consider people who are very immunocompromised -- they are most susceptible to getting sick because their immune systems don't work as well as staving off illness. They would be the group most likely to precisely follow all recommendations about washing hands, don't touch your face or eyes, wear a mask, etc. But they still may end up getting sick more often than the rest of the population, because they're so susceptible. Similarly, people who have digestive issues that make them very susceptible to diseases from meat-based pathogens would be found more in the "follow recommendations precisely" group than in the "deviate considerably from recommendations" group. Thus, the follow recommendations group is contracting diseases more often not because the recommendations are wrong / counterproductive, but because no recommendations are perfect and these people are the highest-risk for contracting diseases in the first place.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% 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