PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 1
Press release: A comprehensive review evaluating the medical(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe review was(13 more words not shown)
- BThe health of(12 more words not shown)
- CCoffee drinkers might(14 more words not shown)
- DOther beverages besides(11 more words not shown)
- EDrinking unusually large(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Coffee could be fine for your heart and still hurt you somewhere else. The review gives the press release something reassuring to report: the medical studies have found no reason to think normal amounts of coffee harm the heart. Let's give that finding the benefit of the doubt. Even if coffee does no damage to your heart, have we established that it is safe for your whole body?
Imagine, just for the sake of testing the argument, that it increased the risk of a problem in your mouth or throat. The review's finding about the heart could still be accurate. The announcement that coffee is safe would be getting ahead of the evidence. We aren't claiming that coffee causes such a problem; we are showing what the heart studies leave open.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to identify a weakness in the reasoning. We don't need to prove that coffee is dangerous. We need to explain why this evidence doesn't establish the broad reassurance the press release gives. Look for the jump from one organ to the body's overall health.
Working the answers
- A
A review can learn something by evaluating studies that other researchers conducted. The reviewers don't have to examine patients themselves for the evidence to be useful. We would need a reason to distrust those studies or the way the review assessed them. A gives neither. Even a perfectly conducted review of heart effects would leave our concern about other effects unanswered.
- BCorrect
Heart health is only one part of overall health. The press release treats a reassuring finding about that part as enough to declare coffee safe. It hasn't addressed the possibility of harm elsewhere in the body. B identifies the gap between what the studies address and what the announcement concludes.
- C
Suppose someone drinks coffee with a food that harms the heart. That could give us a reason to avoid the food, but it would not establish that the coffee is harmful. Having two things at the same meal doesn't make them responsible for each other's effects. Our objection concerns possible effects of coffee itself.
- D
What another beverage does to the heart doesn't settle what coffee does. A stimulant in an energy drink, for example, could have an effect without telling us anything about coffee's safety. The press release makes a claim about coffee; it doesn't compare the safety of different beverages.
- E
The review concerns normal amounts, while E concerns unusually large amounts. That is a different situation. E also identifies stress itself as the cause of heart damage, rather than showing that the coffee causes it. Neither point addresses the leap from heart health to overall safety.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.