Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q7 In one study, hospital patients'

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

In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the patients viewed comic videos.

Conclusion

A silly person who laughs a little is helped more in their recovery than a stoic person who laughs a lot.

Intermediate Conclusion

Laugher can aid recovery from illness.

Evidence

In a study, patients who saw comic videos saw had immune systems that got stronger. Silly people saw bigger immune system gains than did stoic people.

Evaluation

We have a Correlation to Causality move as we go from Premise to Intermediate Conclusion. Just because the immune systems of the people who watched the video grew stronger doesn't mean that "laughter helps with recovery from illness". First of all, who said anyone was laughing? We just know they watched a comic video. The author is assuming some of them laughed.

Secondly, the immune system gain could have been caused by something else (maybe the people who saw the video also got more exercise / also got more sunlight / also had more social interaction).

However, the conclusion itself is a random thought. Nowhere in the evidence did we talk about the silly people only laughing a little while the stoic people laughed a lot. It doesn't make any sense where that specific comparison came from.

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the illicit Correlation vs. Causation assumption, or one calling out the bizarre conclusion comparison that doesn't appear at all in the evidence.

7.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. Correct

    overlooks the possibility that the

    Why this is right

    The weird just gets weirder. This correct answer is an objection, since the author can't make any comparison between "silly people who only laughed a little" and "stoic people who laughed a lot", if it turns out that the silly people laughed more than everyone else. There's no way to have predicted the language/formulation of this answer. We just needed to be reacting to the bizarre new comparison in the conclusion, and to recognize that this would hurt the author's ability to draw that conclusion. When flaw answer choices begin with "fails to consider / overlooks the possibility / neglects the possibility", we just ask ourselves, "Would this be an objection to the author's reasoning?" If so, it's a good answer.

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

    34% picked this

  2. fails to address adequately the

    Not An Objection

    It doesn't affect this argument one way or the other whether silly people or stoic people started out with stronger immune systems (or whether they were equally strong). The author is talking only about how much improvement they make from whatever their starting point was. He's claiming that silly people who laughed a little had +10 improvement points whereas stoic people who laughed a lot only had +5 improvement points. So it makes no difference what their initial immune system "score" was.

    38% picked this

  3. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: representative of entire population

    The author isn't committed to this sampling assumption. Her conclusion is only about "hospital patients" so she isn't claiming or assuming anything about the non-hospital patient segment of the population.

    2% picked this

  4. takes for granted that the

    Not Being Assumed

    She assumes that laughter helps the immune system. Does it hurt her argument if improvements in the immune system help with laughter? No, it can be a two way street. That wouldn't hurt her argument, so it's not necessary for her to assume this isn't happening.

    21% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Not Being Assumed

    We are told that the sillier patients had greater gains in immune strength than the non-silly patients. If we are equating "greater gains in immune strength" with "recovered more rapidly", then this answer would be describing a Premise, not an assumption. If "greater gains in immune strength" ≠ "recovered more rapidly", then this answer is just bringing in something out of scope. So either way we interpret this answer it would be wrong.

    5% 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