Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q1 One reason swimming immediately after

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

One reason swimming immediately after eating is thought to be dangerous is that it could cause muscle cramps.

Opposing Idea

One reason swimming immediately after eating is thought to be dangerous is that it could cause muscle cramps.

Conclusion

There is no reason to believe this [swimming immediately after eating could cause muscle cramps].

Evidence

Muscle cramps are usually caused by muscle fatigue and dehydration, which are unrelated to eating.

Reduced blood flow to muscles during digestion might also be a cause [of muscle cramps], though this is disputed.

In any case, not enough blood goes to the stomach to aid in digestion after a meal to reduce blood flow to muscles.

Evaluate / Goal

This argument follows a common pattern. A claim or idea is stated in the first sentence. The next sentence pivots to a contrasting idea. That contrasting idea is the main point of the argument—the conclusion. The rest of the argument contains evidence supporting that conclusion.

The conclusion is in the second sentence of this argument. It claims that there is no reason to believe that swimming immediately after eating causes muscle cramps. We'll look for a correct answer that makes this same claim.

1.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?

  1. Swimming immediately after eating is

    Bad Conclusion Match Too Strong

    This is tempting. However, when the conclusion states that there is "no reason to believe this," it means that there is no reason to believe that muscle cramps cause swimming immediately after eating to be dangerous. "Swimming after eating is not dangerous because of X" is not the same as saying "swimming after eating is not dangerous at all." It might still be dangerous for some reason other than X.

    9% picked this

  2. Reduced blood flow to muscles

    Premise Too Strong

    This answer resembles part of the evidence. It's not the conclusion. Also, the evidence doesn't state that reduced blood flow to muscles is not a cause of cramps. "This is disputed" only means that there is disagreement about reduced blood flow during digestion causing muscle cramps. The wording of this answer choice is too strong.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    There is no reason to

    Why this is right

    We have a winner! To see that this is correct, we need to recognize that the second sentence in the stimulus contains the conclusion. We also need to understand that the word "this" in that second sentence refers back to swimming after eating being the cause of muscle cramps.

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

    88% picked this

  4. Blood going to the stomach

    Premise

    This information is part of the evidence. It's not the conclusion.

    1% picked this

  5. Blood going to the stomach

    Premise Last Claim Bait

    This statement is given as evidence. It's not the conclusion. The final sentence or statement in an argument is often the conclusion, but not always.

    1% 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