LSAT 103 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 12

September 1998

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:59

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
PT103 S2 Q12
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
3%
165
B
1%
156
C
27%
162
D
64%
169
E
6%
165
152
161
171
 +Hardest 149.468 +SubsectionMedium

The higher the average fat intake among the residents of a country, the higher the incidence of cancer in that country; the lower the average fat intake, the lower the incidence of cancer. So individuals who want to reduce their risk of cancer should reduce their fat intake.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that eating less fat will help reduce cancer risk. He supports this by pointing to a correlation between cancer rates and fat intake: countries with higher cancer rates also have higher average fat intake.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author hypothesizes that higher fat intake is what’s causing the higher cancer rates. This means he assumes that the relationship isn’t the reverse (i.e., the higher cancer rates aren’t somehow causing higher fat intake), and also that there isn’t some hidden, alternative cause that’s actually responsible for the difference in cancer rates between different countries.

A
The differences in average fat intake between countries are often due to the varying makeup of traditional diets.
In order for this to weaken the argument, traditional diets would need to provide an alternative explanation for the difference in cancer rates between different countries. However, the possible effect of any given traditional diet on cancer rates is entirely unclear.
B
The countries with a high average fat intake tend to be among the wealthiest in the world.
In order for this to weaken the argument, the wealth of a country would need to provide an alternative explanation for the increased cancer rates in high-fat counties. However, the connection between increased national wealth and increased cancer likelihood is entirely unclear.
C
Cancer is a prominent cause of death in countries with a low average fat intake.
The stimulus tells us that cancer nevertheless occurs more commonly in countries with higher average fat intake. (C) fails to address any reason for that difference in cancer rates, and so fails to weaken the conclusion that the difference is due to fat intake.
D
The countries with high average fat intake are also the countries with the highest levels of environmental pollution.
This provides an alternative cause for the difference in cancer rates between different countries: it’s not fat intake that’s responsible, but rather exposure to pollution.
E
An individual resident of a country whose population has a high average fat intake may have a diet with a low fat intake.
The fact remains that, in general, high average fat intake correlates with high cancer rates. The possibility that someone’s fat intake might deviate from the average has no effect on the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply