LSAT 132 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 132 - Section 4 - Question 17

December 2010

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:39

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
PT132 S4 Q17
+LR
Except +Exc
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
A
2%
155
B
4%
155
C
3%
156
D
70%
165
E
22%
159
143
154
165
 +Harder 146.238 +SubsectionMedium

A 24-year study of 1,500 adults showed that those subjects with a high intake of foods rich in beta-carotene were much less likely to die from cancer or heart disease than were those with a low intake of such foods. On the other hand, taking beta-carotene supplements for 12 years had no positive or negative effect on the health of subjects in a separate study of 20,000 adults.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did people who ate lots of beta-carotene in their food avoid deadly cancer and heart disease when people taking beta-carotene supplements experienced no changes to their health?

Objective
The correct answer must fail to explain why people in the two studies experienced such different health outcomes. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will state a flaw in the studies’ designs or explain why people who eat foods rich in beta-carotene are less likely to die from cancer and heart disease than those who take a supplement.

A
The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene process more of it than those who only take supplements.
B
Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
This would explain why people in the first study showed benefits while people in the second study did not. Those in the second study did not consume high levels of beta-carotene over a long enough period to achieve health benefits.
C
Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body’s absorption of beta-carotene.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene eat food also rich in other nutrients, and those nutrients cause the lower risk of deadly cancer and heart disease.
D
In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
This does not explain the discrepancy. The author states that people who took the supplements experienced no health benefits, regardless of the placebo group.
E
In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
This would explain the discrepancy. People in the first study were less likely to die of cancer and heart disease because they were less likely to smoke cigarettes.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 132 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply