LSAT 111 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 24

October 2001

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:12

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
PT111 S4 Q24
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
0%
156
B
79%
166
C
2%
158
D
17%
160
E
1%
156
140
151
162
 +Medium 144.86 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

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

A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug pravastatin, one of the effects of which is to reduce cholesterol, had about one-third fewer nonfatal heart attacks and one-third fewer deaths from coronary disease than did those not taking the drug. This result is consistent with other studies, which show that those who have heart disease often have higher than average cholesterol levels. This shows that lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease risk. She supports this with a study showing that people treated with pravastatin, which lowers cholesterol, had fewer heart attacks and heart disease deaths than people not taking the drug. She also notes that people with heart disease often have higher cholesterol levels.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking correlation for causation. The author shows that high cholesterol and heart disease are correlated and assumes that high cholesterol causes heart disease risk.

Also, she thinks that pravastatin further proves this causation, assuming that it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. But the drug could reduce heart disease risk in another way, and simply lower cholesterol as a side effect.

A
neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects
Pravastatin may have severe side effects, but this wouldn’t affect whether it reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol.
B
fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels
The author assumes that pravastatin reduces the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol. She uses this as evidence that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease risk. But the drug could reduce the risk in another way, with cholesterol reduction just being a side effect.
C
relies on past findings, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited
The author does use past findings about the link between high cholesterol and heart disease. But she also uses the data found in the specific study on pravastatin.
D
draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels
The author does draw a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol on heart disease, but this isn’t a flaw in her argument. Just because the study on pravastatin was used as evidence doesn’t mean that her conclusion has to be about pravastatin.
E
fails to consider what percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin
It doesn’t matter what percentage of the general population take pravastatin. We know that enough people take it to make up a sizable study on its effects, which is all that matters here.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply