LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 04

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 04

October 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:04

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT107 S3 Q04
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
159
B
1%
162
C
1%
162
D
97%
166
E
0%
157
120
120
128
 +Easiest 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

Most small children are flat-footed. This failure of the foot to assume its natural arch, if it persists past early childhood, can sometimes result in discomfort and even pain later in life. Traditionally, flat-footedness in children has been treated by having the children wear special shoes that give extra support to the foot, in order to foster the development of the arch.

Summarize Argument
The stimulus only offers a set of facts, not an argument; instead, the question stem tells us to weaken the claim that the traditional treatment for flat-footedness in children is effective. This treatment, according to the stimulus, is to give flat-footed children shoes with extra support, with the goal of fostering arch development.

Notable Assumptions
The claim that the traditional treatment for flat-footedness in children is effective is based on the assumption that wearing shoes with extra support actually does improve arch development. The stimulus doesn’t provide any data to support this, so it’s just an assumption.

A
Many small children who have normal feet wear the same special shoes as those worn by flat-footed children.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of the traditional treatment. Whether or not children with normal feet also wear these special shoes doesn’t tell us anything about the effects of those shoes on arch development. This is just irrelevant.
B
Studies of flat-footed adults show that flat feet are subject to fewer stress fractures than are feet with unusually high arches.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of the traditional treatment. We’re not interested in the pros and cons of flat feet versus high arches, we’re interested in whether the treatment for flat-footedness actually works. This doesn’t help with that at all.
C
Although most children’s flat-footedness is corrected by the time the children reach puberty, some people remain flat-footed for life.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of the traditional treatment. This doesn’t tell us whether or not there’s any relationship between wearing special shoes and the improvement of flat-footedness, it’s just irrelevant.
D
Flat-footed children who do not wear the special shoes are as likely to develop natural arches as are flat-footed children who wear the special shoes.
This undermines the effectiveness of the traditional treatment by rebutting the assumption that wearing special shoes actually improves arch development. If there’s no correlation between treatment and arch development, we can’t call the treatment effective.
E
Some children who are not flat-footed have hip and lower leg bones that are rotated excessively either inward or outward.
This does not undermine the effectiveness of the traditional treatment. We’re only interested in the correction of flat-footedness, so a fact about non-flat-footed children is totally outside the domain of this question.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply