Physiological research has uncovered disturbing

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsNecessary Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence linking a number of structural disorders to jogging. Among the ailments seemingly connected with this now-popular sport are spinal disk displacements, stress fractures of the feet and ankles, knee and hip joint deterioration, and tendonitis. Furthermore, these injuries do not occur exclusively among beginning runners—veteran joggers the human anatomy is not able to withstand the stresses of jogging.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

Which one of the following is an assumption of

Answer choices

Correct84% picked this
The link between jogging and certain structural disorders appears to be
Why this is right
This is one of those weird correct answers where you might be like, "well, sure of course the author believes that. But that can't be the answer, can it?" Yes! If it's something we can tell the author was thinking, it'll be the answer. The conclusion that "human anatomy isn't up to the task of jogging" is implying that these human anatomy infirmities were caused by jogging.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
84%
Out of Scope2% picked this
Jogging causes more serious disorders than
Out of Scope: other sports Irrelevant Comprison: more serious disorders The argument was solely about jogging. Comparing its severity to other sports isn't necessary. The conclusion doesn't argue that jogging is the most dangerous; it claims only that human anatomy struggles to handle jogging.
2%
Opposite6% picked this
The jogger’s level of experience is a factor determining the likelihood of
This directly contradicts the evidence, which states both new and veteran joggers experience injuries at equal rates. It also doesn't address whether the stress is inherent or suggests alternative factors affecting injury risk.
6%
Irrelevant Comparison4% picked this
Some sports are safer for the human body
The conclusion is solely about jogging's impact; it's not a comparative statement about other sports. Therefore, the author does not consider relative safety among different sports. If we negate this and say "NO sports are safer than jogging", that doesn't hurt the argument. The author can be like, "I agree -- the human anatomy isn't up to the task of any sport."
4%
Too Broad / Strong4% picked this
The human species is not very
While the author questions whether our anatomy can handle jogging, it doesn't generalize to human durability in general. This choice is overly broad and not necessary to support the conclusion about jogging specifically.
4%

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