Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q18 Efforts to get the public to exercise regularly

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

Efforts to get the public to exercise regularly, which have emphasized the positive health effects of exercise rather than the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle, have met with little success.

Conclusion (Thus)

If public health people emphasized the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle rather than the positive health effects of exercise, then efforts to get the public to exercise regularly would be more successful.

Evidence

Efforts that have emphasized the positive health effects of exercise have met with little success.

Meanwhile, efforts to emphasize the negative health effects of cigarette smoking have been highly successful.

Evaluate

This argument has a couple undercurrents, so it'll be tricky to predict exactly where the answer is going.

On aspect of the argument is a Plan / Recommendation, so we want to consider whether this plan is feasible, whether people would be motivated to cooperate with it, whether it would backfire in some way.

But another aspect of this argument is Argument by Analogy. The author thinks that .

So we could weaken this argument by fighting the Plan ... - it's not feasible to emphasize dangers of sedentary - it wouldn't motivate people to think about the dangers of sedentary - the dangers of sedentary would seem so mild and tolerable that it would backfire and people would think

... or by fighting the Comparison - the dangers of smoking are way worse than the dangers of sedentary lifestyle - a campaign to emphasize the benefits of quitting smoking would be even more helpful than the successful ones they've done which emphasized the dangers of smoking

Goal

Look for an answer that seems to match a thought the author definitely had in her mind, or look for something that, when negated, would be a big objection to the argument.

18.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

The health risks associated with
Too Strong: as great as
The author doesn't need the health risks to be equally risky when it comes to sedentary lifestyle vs. smoking. The only equivalence the author is assuming is that in both cases (smoking and sloth), it is more effective to emphasize the harm of doing it than it is to emphasize the benefit of not doing it.
13% picked this
Efforts to get the public
Out of Scope: conveying the message
The author has already established that campaign that emphasized the benefits of exercise has had little success. It may be because the efforts didn't really convey the message, or it could be that the message was conveyed but people didn't find it particularly persuasive. The author doesn't need to assume one specific causal backstory for why the efforts to emphasize benefits have failed. For the sake of the author's argument, we just need to know "those efforts were not successful, thus these different efforts would probably be more successful".
4% picked this
Although most smokers are aware
Too Strong: few are aware
Would it weaken the argument at all if we negated this and said, "Hey, author -- most smokers are aware of the positive effects of quitting"? No, it would have no effect. The author would be like, "Sure. Cool. They're aware of the positive effects of quitting. But when we emphasized the dangers of smoking, we've had a lot of success getting people to quit. So let's try that with exercise."
2% picked this
Correct
Efforts to curb cigarette smoking
Why this is right
Would it weaken the argument if we said that, "efforts to curb smoking would be more successful if they emphasized the positive effects of quitting"? Yes! The author is supporting her recommendation by saying, "Look how successful anti-smoking efforts have been when they emphasize the dangers of smoking. You exercise advocates should thus try that technique". If we were able to say, "yeah, but those anti-smoking efforts would be even more successful if they emphasized the benefits of quitting. Thus, we exercise advocates should stick with the more effective tactic: emphasizing the positives of a healthy habit seems to be more effective than emphasizing the dangers of an unhealthy habit." It might be even easier to understand the appeal of this answer if we think about the fuller evidence we would have liked to have heard: Our pro-exercise campaigns should try emphasizing the dangers of not exercising. After all, with cigarette smoking, they tried it both ways, and it was more successful when they emphasized dangers than when they emphasized benefits.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% picked this
The majority of people who
Too Strong: majority / primary
This loaded language is not our friend on Necessary Assumption, because it's too precise to be necessary. This would be a great answer on Strengthen. But if we negate this, we're getting ideas like, "at most 49% of people who quit smoking cite health concerns as the #1 motivation". Maybe 99% of people who quit smoking cite health concerns as their #2 motivation. That's plenty. The author only has to assume that emphasizing danger is more effective than emphasizing benefits. She doesn't need to assume that it is effective with a majority of people. If emphasizing dangers gets 40% of smokers to quit, but emphasizing benefits only gets 30% of smokers to quit, the author's argument still makes sense.
9% 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