LSAT 154 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 154 - Section 1 - Question 19

September 2017

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:06

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
PT154 S1 Q19
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
A
79%
164
B
1%
151
C
12%
158
D
5%
156
E
3%
153
140
149
158
 +Medium 147.621 +SubsectionMedium

Medical researcher: At the Flegco Corporation, all employees whose work involves lifting heavy objects wear back belts to prevent back injuries. However, a study found that Flegco employees who wear back belts are actually more likely to suffer back injuries than are employees who do not wear back belts. This suggests that back belts do not help to prevent back injuries.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that back belts don’t help prevent back injuries. This is based on the fact that in a study of Flegco employees, those who wear back belts are more likely to suffer back injuries than employees who don’t wear back belts.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the people who wear back belts at Flegco start off with a higher risk of back injuries than the people who don’t wear back belts. For example, maybe the people who wear back belts are involved in manual labor, whereas the people who don’t wear back belts are office workers who don’t lift anything heavy. If this is true, then we can’t conclude that back belts don’t reduce injuries simply because the people who wear back belts have more back injuries than the people who don’t wear the belts.

A
It compares the incidence of back injury between two groups who probably do not have the same risk factors for back injury.
This points out that the people who wear back belts might be more at risk of back injury due to the nature of their job than are the people who don’t wear back belts. This is why the fact that the belt-wearers are more likely to get back injuries does not prove the belts don’t help reduce injuries.
B
It fails to address the possibility that Flegco Corporation employees are more likely to wear back belts than are employees who perform similar tasks in other corporations.
The argument concerns a comparison between Flegco employees. How Flegco employees compare to employees of other corporations is not relevant.
C
It takes for granted that if a factor is associated with an increased likelihood of a certain effect, that factor must causally contribute to that effect.
The author does not assume that back belts causally contribute to back injuries. The conclusion is just that back belts do not help prevent back injuries. In other words, the author could believe back belts simply have no causal relationship to back injuries.
D
It confuses the claim that a phenomenon does not causally contribute to a certain effect with the claim that that phenomenon causally contributes to preventing that effect.
The author concludes that back belts do not help prevent back injuries. This claim is not confused for a claim that back belts do help prevent back injuries.
E
It fails to address the possibility that even if a factor is sufficient to produce a certain effect, its presence may not be necessary in order for that effect to be produced.
(E) describes a confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions. But there is no factor presented as sufficient to guarantee a certain effect. So there can’t be a confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 154 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply