Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT8 S1 Q7 Explanation

In a study of the effect of radiation

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

TopicsWeaken

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

Start practicing free

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

In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers compared death rates in the areas near the plants with death rates in areas that had no such plants. Finding no difference in these rates, the researchers poses no health hazards to people living near them.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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

The question
7.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the

Answer choices

  1. No Impact1% picked this

    Nuclear power plants were not included in

    The conclusion is only about nuclear weapons plants, so it doesn't matter whether power plants were included in the study.

  2. Opposite Impact3% picked this

    The areas studied had similar death rates before and after the nuclear weapons

    This strengthens the author's anti-causal conclusion. These areas were fair to compare before nuclear plants arrived, and fair to compare after they arrived, so it looks like the addition of the nuclear plants didn't change anything.

  3. Correct88% picked this

    Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause many serious diseases that do not necessarily

    Why this is right

    This choice gives us a way to argue that "exposure to radiation presents health hazards", because it literally says that it can cause many serious diseases. The fact that these diseases aren't necessarily fatal helps us understand why these areas, despite having more health hazards, wouldn't necessarily have more deaths.

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

  4. No Impact0% picked this

    Only a small number of areas have nuclear

    We wouldn't care whether most areas or few areas have these plants. In either case, we can compare their average death rates to that of areas without plants to see if there's any meaningful difference.

  5. No Impact8% picked this

    The researchers did not study the possible health hazards of radiation on people who were employed at the nuclear weapons plants if those employees

    The conclusion is only about people who live near the plants, not those who work there (and don't live nearby). So it is correct for the study to have left them out. If anything, this strengthens the argument.

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