Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S2 · Q15 Few, if any, carbonated beverages

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

Few, if any, carbonated beverages contain calcium.

Conclusion

Caffeine consumption is the main reason that teenagers who consume caffeinated sodas have a higher incidence of broken bones.

Evidence

Caffeinated sodas cause people to excrete more calcium. Calcium deficiency can make bones more brittle (presumably making them easier to break).

Evaluate

This is the classic Curious Fact / Explanation template we expect on lots of Strengthen / Weaken questions.

Curious Fact: Why do teenagers who drink caffeinated sodas have a higher incidence of broken bones?

Author's Story: The caffeinated soda drains their calcium, leading to calcium deficiency, leading to brittle bones, leading to more easily broken bones.

We always address these with the same two pressure points - Is there some OTHER STORY that could explain the Curious Fact? - How plausible is the AUTHOR'S STORY?

Goal

Since this is Weaken, we know to prioritize thinking about OTHER STORIES.

How else could we explain the correlation between caffeinated soda and broken bones? Our customary go-to alternative explanations for correlations are Reverse Causality and Third Factor.

Could it be that breaking bones came first and caffeinated sodas came next? Maybe. Unlikely, but maybe teens who break their bones become sedentary and sleepier and start drinking caffeinated sodas more to pep themselves up.

Could there be some Third Factor that really caused the broken bones and just happens to go along with the caffeinated sodas? Sure, there's the whole Mountain Dew X-Games angle. The kids most likely to drink caffeinated sodas are the ones who most frequently engage in physically dangerous activities like skateboarding / snowboarding.

On a first pass prioritize looking for a different Causal Story, but we could also use an answer that disrupts the plausibility of the author's storyline: first they drank caffeinated soda, then calcium deficiency, then brittle bones.

15.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. Correct

    Teenagers who drink large quantities

    Why this is right

    This gives us a Third Factor alternate explanation. It's not the caffeinated soda that's causing these teens to have lower calcium and more brittle bones than their peers, it's the fact that they drink smaller quantities of calcium-rich beverages. You have teens drinking Mountain Dew, and other teens drinking milk. This answer is saying that the primary reason the Mountain Dew kids have more broken bones isn't that their MTN Dew drains their calcium but rather that they didn't have a milk-boosted supply of calcium to start with. Technically, we know the caffeinated soda drinking still contributes to lower calcium, but we now have a way to argue it's not the primary reason for their broken bones.

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

    48% picked this

  2. Teenagers engage in the types

    Wrong Comparison

    For this to be out answer it would need to say "Teenagers who drink caffeinated sodas engage in more broken bone activities than those who don't."

    29% picked this

  3. Some teenagers have calcium deficiencies

    Too Weak

    The word "some" is wrong at least 90% of the time you see it in Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox since it's so weak. This says that there is at least one teenager who has a calcium deficiency even though they don't drink coffee. Cool. His name is Jeff, and he's sitting right here. "Sorry, Jeff, but you're irrelevant to this argument". Arguments about correlations and averages leave plenty of room for exceptions, but LSAT always writes this type of trap answer to bait people into objecting, "But that's not true 100% of the time!" You're right, but the author agrees with you. The author never said it was 100% of the time.

    12% picked this

  4. Some of the less popular

    Irrelevant Comparison: popularity Too Weak

    This is again super dubious given that it says "Some". There's no impact on this argument by saying, "There is at least one less popular caffeinated soda that has even more caffeine than more popular ones". How does that help us argue that caffeinated soda is not the primary reason that teens who drink caffeinated have a higher rate of broken bones? Saying that "some brands have even more caffeine" doesn't allow us to think "oh, the brands that the teens are drinking don't REALLY have caffeine".

    0% picked this

  5. The more calcium a person

    No Impact

    The more water I drink, the more I'll pee. What does this have to do with assessing the putative causal connection between caffeinated soda and broken bones? The people who make more money, spend more money, but they still end up with more money than the person who was low on money to begin with. So people who eat more calcium excrete more calcium, but still end up being someone with higher calcium (we assume).

    10% 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