LSAT 155 – Section 4 – Question 02

LSAT 155 - Section 4 - Question 02

November 2019

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:50

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
PT155 S4 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
2%
151
B
2%
152
C
2%
151
D
93%
160
E
1%
148
123
132
142
 +Easiest 147.589 +SubsectionMedium

Brian: I used to eat cheeseburgers from fast-food restaurants almost every day. But then I read that eating bread and meat in the same meal interferes with digestion. So I stopped eating cheeseburgers and switched to a diet of lean meats, fruits, and vegetables. Since starting this new diet, I feel much better and my cholesterol level and blood pressure are lower. This proves that eating bread and meat in the same meal is unhealthy.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that eating bread and meat in the same meal is unhealthy. This is based on the fact that after he stopped eating cheeseburgers from fast-food restaurants every day, and instead switched to a diet of lean meats, fruits, and vegetables, he started to have a lower cholesterol level and blood pressure.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the combination of bread and meat in the same meal was the cause of his higher levels of cholesterol and blood pressure before switching his diet. This overlooks the possibility that the true cause was eating meals from fast-food restaurants every day. Perhaps if he had eaten bread and meat in the same meal, but the meal was from places besides fast-food restaurants, he wouldn’t have suffered from higher cholesterol and blood pressure.

A
treats a statement as established fact merely because a self-appointed expert has asserted it
The author doesn’t assume that eating bread and meat in the same meal interferes with digestion simply because experts have said it does. The author’s conclusion is based on his own experience after switching his diet.
B
draws a conclusion that merely restates a premise offered in support of it
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion is not a restatement of any of the premises. The premises concern a description of the author’s diet and what he experienced after switching his diet.
C
treats a condition that must occur in order for an effect to occur as a condition that would ensure that the effect occurs
(C) describes a confusion of sufficient and necessary condition. The argument doesn’t present any condition that “must occur” in order for an effect to occur. There are no necessary conditions presented.
D
concludes that one part of a change was responsible for an effect without ruling out the possibility that other parts of that change were responsible
The author concludes that one part of a change (bread and meat in the same meal) was responsible for the author’s lower cholesterol and blood pressure. But this ignores the possibility that the switch from fast-food was responsible.
E
concludes that making a dietary change improved the health of a particular person simply because that change results in improved health for most people
The author’s conclusion is not based on a claim that refraining from eating meat and bread in the same meal improves health for most people.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply