LSAT 139 – Section 1 – Question 20

LSAT 139 - Section 1 - Question 20

June 2013

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:15

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
PT139 S1 Q20
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
Math +Math
A
5%
160
B
77%
166
C
11%
161
D
5%
154
E
1%
154
144
153
162
 +Harder 142.273 +SubsectionEasier

Video of JY doing this

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

Medical reporter: Studies have consistently found that taking an aspirin a day thins the blood slightly, thereby helping to prevent or reduce the severity of heart disease. Since heart disease is one of the most common types of ill health in industrialized nations, most people in such nations would therefore be in better health if they took an aspirin a day.

Summarize Argument
The medical reporter claims that most people in industrialized nations would benefit from taking an aspirin a day. This is because aspirin helps with heart disease, which is common in these nations.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The flaw here amounts to missing the key difference between what’s common and what’s true of most people. Heart disease may be one of the most common illnesses, but that doesn’t mean that the majority of people suffer from it. Since the conclusion is that aspirin will benefit most people in the nation, merely establishing that the illness it treats is common is not enough to justify it.

A
It takes for granted that if medication can reduce the severity of heart disease, it can also prevent some cases of heart disease.
The argument doesn’t claim that aspirin prevents heart disease, just that it improves health. The flaw lies in the presumption that this applies to most people in these nations.
B
It overlooks the possibility that even if a disease is one of the most common in a nation, most people in that nation are not in significant danger of developing that disease.
This describes how the argument fails to justify the claim that aspirin would benefit the majority of people. Simply establishing that the disease it treats is common isn’t enough.
C
It overlooks the possibility that preventing or reducing the severity of heart disease has little or no effect on any of the other most common diseases in industrialized nations.
This is irrelevant. The doctor’s claim is that aspirin helps with heart disease, thereby improving health. It doesn’t matter whether or not it affects other diseases. The flaw is assuming that aspirin would improve health for the majority of people in these countries.
D
It fails to address the possibility that taking an aspirin a day is not the single most effective measure for preventing heart disease.
This is irrelevant because the doctor never claims that it’s the best at preventing the illness, only that it helps. The flaw is assuming that this would be helpful for most people in these countries.
E
It fails to address the possibility that the studies on the beneficial effects of aspirin were conducted only in industrialized nations.
This is irrelevant. There’s no reason to believe that conducting studies in industrialized nations would make their findings less reliable.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply