LSAT 140 – Section 2 – Question 16

LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 16

December 2013

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:53

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
PT140 S2 Q16
+LR
+Exp
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
9%
157
B
1%
151
C
82%
164
D
1%
152
E
7%
162
130
143
156
 +Medium 149.441 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer. This is simply false. The fact is that only about 5 percent of people with severe heartburn have a condition called Barrett’s esophagus, in which cells similar to those in the stomach’s lining develop in the lower esophagus. Only these people have an increased risk of developing cancer because of heartburn.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Some advertising for heartburn medications is false because unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. In reality, only about 5 percent of people with severe heartburn have a condition that raises the risk of cancer. So, only about 5 percent of people—those with this condition—are at a higher risk of developing cancer due to heartburn.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s contention that some heartburn medications are falsely advertised because it is not true that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.

A
Only those people with Barrett’s esophagus can suffer an increased risk of developing cancer from heartburn.
This is a premise. The stimulus notes that only 5% of people—those with Barrett's esophagus—have a higher risk of cancer to support the conclusion that heartburn isn’t "likely" to increase the risk of cancer. If only 5% of people are at risk, it’s unlikely for the average person.
B
An increase in the risk of esophageal cancer arises from cells similar to those in the stomach’s lining developing in the lower esophagus.
This is a premise. It provides background on a condition called Barrett's esophagus, which the author mentions to support her conclusion. Since readers may be unfamiliar with Barrett’s esophagus, this claim gives them the information needed to follow the author’s argument.
C
Unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer.
This accurately states the main conclusion. The author argues that some heartburn-medication ads are untrue because unrelieved heartburn is not likely to cause esophageal cancer. Since only 5% of people are at risk, the average person is not "likely" to have an increased risk.
D
Some heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer.
This is context. The claim that some heartburn-medication ads imply unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer helps explain the author's argument, which concludes that this advertising is false since heartburn only increases cancer risk in about 5% of people.
E
The dangers touted by heartburn-medication advertisements will affect relatively few of the people who see those advertisements.
The stimulus doesn’t make this claim. A premise states that only 5% of people will have a higher risk of esophageal cancer from heartburn but doesn’t suggest that only 5% of people who see the ads have this condition. People with the condition may be more likely to see the ads.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 140 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply