Logical Reasoning

PT159 · S1 · Q1 Columnist: The dangers of drinking are greatly exaggerated

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

Columnist: The dangers of drinking are greatly exaggerated in the medical press.

Conclusion

The dangers of drinking are greatly exaggerated in the medical press.

Evidence

The columnist's grandfather drank heavily his entire life and lived to be 95.

Evaluate

The columnist tries to challenge a general claim about how alcohol shortens lives by citing one person who drank heavily and lived a long life. A single example cannot refute a population-level claim — the claim is about averages and tendencies, not about every individual.

Goal

Find the answer pointing out that the columnist relies on a single anecdote to attack a general claim.

1.

The reasoning in the columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. does not address moral objections

    Bad Objection

    The columnist's argument is about whether the medical press exaggerates the dangers of drinking. Moral objections to alcohol are a separate topic. Even if the columnist also failed to address ethical concerns, that would not be the reasoning flaw — the reasoning flaw is jumping from one example to a general claim.

    0% picked this

  2. fails to consider factors other

    Bad Objection

    This says the columnist fails to consider other factors that shorten life. But the argument's direction is the opposite — the columnist is trying to defend alcohol as not dangerous, and other life-shortening factors would not undermine that defense; they would be consistent with it. Even if there were many other factors, the central problem is that the columnist relies on a single example to attack a general claim.

    3% picked this

  3. only addresses the length of

    Bad Objection

    The argument is specifically about whether drinking shortens life, so addressing only length of life is exactly what the argument needs to address. Quality-of-life concerns are a separate issue and not the reasoning flaw being committed.

    6% picked this

  4. confuses the cause of a

    Causal Flaw

    The columnist is not confusing cause with effect. There is no causal reversal in the argument — the columnist is simply citing one long-lived heavy drinker. The flaw is the use of an anecdote to challenge a general statistical claim, not a cause-effect mix-up.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    relies merely on anecdotal evidence

    Why this is right

    This identifies the flaw exactly. The columnist's evidence is one anecdote: my grandfather drank heavily and lived to 95. The columnist uses that single example to challenge a general claim — the medical press's claim that alcohol shortens lives. General claims about how alcohol affects health are statistical; one outlier does not refute them. That is precisely the flaw of relying on anecdotal evidence against a general claim.

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

    86% 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