PrepTest 107, Section 3, Question 4
Most small children are flat-footed.(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- AMany small children(15 more words not shown)
- BStudies of flat-footed(18 more words not shown)
- CAlthough most children's(16 more words not shown)
- DFlat-footed children who(22 more words not shown)
- ESome children who(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do the shoes help, or would the children's feet develop arches anyway?
Most small children are flat-footed, and the passage describes a treatment intended to encourage an arch to develop. But the fact that a child wears the shoes and later develops an arch would not, by itself, show that the shoes caused the change. Perhaps that would have happened as the child grew.
We can also question the proposed solution from another direction. The shoes provide extra support. Is insufficient support actually what prevents these children's arches from developing? If the problem comes from something the shoes don't address, extra support might accomplish nothing.
What we’re looking for
The passage mostly describes a condition and its traditional treatment. We don't need to force it into a full argument with a stated conclusion. The question tells us what to challenge: the treatment's effectiveness. I want a reason to think the shoes aren't helping flat-footed children develop arches. Evidence that comparable improvement happens without them would do that.
Working the answers
- A
Children with normal feet wear the shoes too. That doesn't tell us what the shoes do for children whose arches haven't developed. The same shoes could be worn for different reasons and still help the children who need the treatment. Popularity outside the treated group is not evidence of failure.
- B
Fewer stress fractures would be a possible advantage of flat feet compared with unusually high arches. But we're asking whether the shoes help an arch develop, not whether flat feet have any advantage at all. The treatment could be effective regardless of this comparison between adults' feet.
- C
This comes close to our thought that many children grow out of flat-footedness, but it leaves out the crucial comparison. Did the children who improved wear the shoes? Would they have improved without them? C doesn't say.
The fact that some people remain flat-footed doesn't settle effectiveness either. A treatment can help some people without curing everyone. We need information about what difference wearing the shoes makes.
- DCorrect
Children who don't wear the special shoes are just as likely to develop natural arches as children who do. Now we have the comparison missing from C. The desired improvement happens just as often without the treatment.
That gives us a reason to doubt that the shoes are responsible for the improvement. It fits our concern that the children may develop arches anyway. We don't have to prove that the shoes could never benefit any individual; the equal likelihood directly challenges their claimed effectiveness.
- E
This concerns a different condition in children who are not flat-footed. Rotated hip or leg bones tell us nothing about whether the special shoes help flat-footed children develop arches. It does not address the treatment we're evaluating.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.