LSAT 156 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 156 - Section 2 - Question 09

July 2020

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:16

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
PT156 S2 Q09
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
2%
143
B
5%
149
C
2%
143
D
1%
147
E
91%
157
120
128
140
 +Easiest 145.275 +SubsectionEasier

Editorialist: Evidence shows that restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on smoking among adults. A recent survey has shown that a smaller percentage of adults now smoke than at any other time in the last two decades. The decline in the percentage of adults who smoke has been most marked during the last ten years, and, not coincidently, some of the most important restrictions on tobacco advertising came into force ten years ago.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that restrictions on tobacco advertising have significantly reduced smoking among adults. This is based on a correlation observed between a decline in % of people who smoke and an increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between decline in tobacco smoking and increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising is explained by the restrictions causing the decline. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. For example, maybe both the decline and the increase in restrictions are caused by something else.

A
fails to consider whether there have been any changes over the last two decades in the percentage of the teenage population who smoke
The conclusion concerns adults’ smoking. Whether teens have also seen a decline in smoking doesn’t affect adults’ smoking.
B
uses evidence that describes only a percentage of the adult population to reach a conclusion about the entire adult population
The conclusion is not about the entire adult population. The conclusion simply asserts a causal relationship between restrictions on advertising and a decline in smoking. This doesn’t mean every adult stopped smoking or that every adult is affected by restrictions on advertising.
C
reaches a conclusion about smoking among today’s adults based on statistics from ten or twenty years ago
The conclusion is not about “today’s adults.” It assert that restrictions have “had” a significant impact on adults’ smoking. Evidence of what has happened in the past is relevant to a claim about what effects restrictions have “had.”
D
neglects to take into account whether there have been restrictions on the advertising of other products besides tobacco in the past ten years
It’s not clear what impact restrictions of other products could have on smoking. The author did not assume that there weren’t restrictions on canned food, toys, or pencils, for example.
E
fails to consider the possibility that factors other than restrictions on advertising have contributed to the decline in smoking among adults
This possibility, if true, shows why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If other factors could have contributed to the decline in smoking, then the correlation between restrictions and the decline does not have to be significantly due to those restrictions.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 156 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply