Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S2 · Q16 Some health officials are concerned

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

Some health officials are concerned about the current sustained increase in reported deaths from alcohol-related conditions, attributing this increase to a rise in alcoholism.

Conclusion (therefore)

It's likely that more deaths are being reported as alcohol-related because physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol-related.

Evidence

Attitudes toward alcoholism have changed radically. It's not widely viewed as a disease, not a moral failing.

Evaluate

Since the conclusion is offering a causal hypothesis for something that has changed, we can use our Explain Curious Fact mindset.

Curious Fact ... why is there an increase in reported deaths from alcohol-related conditions?

Author's Explanation ... There aren't actually more alcohol-related deaths than before. It's just that in the past, physicians were less likely to identify such deaths as alcohol related because of the moral stigma attached to alcoholism. Now that society looks at alcoholism as a disease, physicians are reporting these deaths as alcohol related.

We're always concerned with the same two questions:

1. Could there be an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? (what could be a different reason for the uptick in alcohol-related deaths?)

2. How plausible is the author's explanation? (what could make it seem more / less believable that changing societal attitudes have made it more likely for physicians to deem a death as alcohol-related?)

Goal

Since this is Strengthen, we want to rule out an alternate explanation for the uptick in reported alcohol-related deaths.

Or, more likely, we want to boost the plausibility of the author's story. The most common plausibility-booster is "No Cause, No Effect", so that would be something like, .

16.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument?

The frequent use of alcohol
Weakens
This answer makes it sound like consumption of alcohol is actually changing, which would be the Alternate Explanation the author is rejecting. The author is selling us on a story where consumption of alcohol is basically the same. What's changed, instead, is attitudes about alcohol leading more people to "admit" that a death was alcohol related.
2% picked this
In some places and times,
No Impact
This is incredibly weak (some), so it's unlikely to ever be a correct answer on Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, or Sufficient Assumption. It just saying "there was at least one place in the history of mankind where susceptibility to any kind of disease was viewed as a moral failing". That tells us nothing about the situation happening here and now with alcohol-related deaths.
5% picked this
Correct
More physicians now than in
Why this is right
This adds some plausibility to the author's explanation. She is saying that the real reason for the uptick in reported alcohol-deaths is that things have changed in terms of how we view alcoholism. The same number of deaths always occurred, but we used to not label them as alcohol-related. She is claiming that nowadays physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol-related. One premise to support that is that we now see alcoholism more as a disease. Another premise to support that is this answer choice -- more doctors nowadays are trained to recognize the physical effects of alcoholism. Back in the day, when it wasn't considered a disease, physicians weren't trained to recognize its physical effects, so if they were looking at a patient who died from alcohol-related conditions, the physician might not realize that it was an alcohol-related condition (and the family members wouldn't volunteer that information, since alcoholism was considered a moral failing).
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
89% picked this
Even though alcoholism is considered
No Impact
The way that most doctors choose to treat alcoholism is irrelevant to this discussion. We are trying to figure out why there's been an uptick in reported deaths from alcoholism. Is it because doctors are more likely to label certain deaths as alcohol-related? This answer does nothing to help us judge that question.
2% picked this
Many health officials are not
No Impact
This is so weak that it would almost never be a correct answer on Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, or Sufficient Assumption. It's telling us, "there are at least 5 health officials who aren't physicians". Cool, (E). We know. We were never thinking that virtually all health officials are physicians.
2% 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