PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 17
Researchers have found that people who drink five(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(19 more words not shown)
- AThe study found(24 more words not shown)
- BPer capita coffee(23 more words not shown)
- CThe study did(29 more words not shown)
- DSubsequent studies have(15 more words not shown)
- ESubsequent studies have(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the heavy coffee drinkers have stressful jobs. They could drink more coffee to get through demanding days, while the stress—not the coffee—helps explain their higher risk of heart disease.
The researchers have accounted for age and smoking habits, which addresses two possible differences between the groups. But that doesn't show they've accounted for every relevant difference. The reported association still leaves us asking why the heavy coffee drinkers have higher risk.
I'd also question the choice of two cups as the cutoff. The passage reports a result for five or more cups. It hasn't yet told us what happens at three or four, or how much the researchers were drinking before the change. The recommended limit goes beyond the particular comparison we've seen.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what indicates that their precaution might not reduce their risk. My clearest prediction is the stress explanation: if coffee accompanies the real source of risk without producing it, cutting coffee could leave that source untouched. We only need a reason the precaution might fail, not proof that reducing coffee can never help anyone.
Working the answers
- A
This extends the reported pattern to three cups and above, with additional risk rising with each extra cup. That supplies support for taking the two-cup limit seriously rather than giving a reason it might fail. The pattern still doesn't settle causation, but A doesn't expose the alternative explanation we're looking for.
- B
A decline in average coffee consumption tells us what people have been drinking over time. It doesn't establish what changing one person's intake would do to that person's risk. Health worries can motivate a change without showing whether the change is effective. The popularity trend doesn't resolve this precaution's effect.
- CCorrect
Stress is a major cause of heart disease, and the study didn't gather the information needed to check whether higher coffee intake goes with higher stress. That leaves our alternative explanation open.
C doesn't prove that stress caused the observed difference, which makes it less decisive than my initial prediction. But the question asks why the precaution might not work. If stress accounts for the risk while coffee simply accompanies it, cutting coffee without changing the stress needn't remove that risk. The unexamined possibility is enough to undermine confidence in the precaution.
- D
Smoking could be an important competing explanation, but the stated result was already corrected for smoking habits. Merely showing that heavy smokers drink more coffee doesn't show that this correction failed. We need a reason to doubt the remaining association, not a relationship the researchers have already taken into account.
- E
This gives a route by which coffee could be connected to increased risk: it causes elevated blood cholesterol, which the answer identifies as a risk indicator. Calling attention to that intermediate effect doesn't turn it into an alternative unrelated to coffee. If coffee produces the concerning change, that supports taking coffee reduction seriously rather than suggesting it would have no effect.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.