PrepTest 116, Section 4, Question 24
Most scientists who study the physiological effects of(447 more words not shown)
It can be inferred from(16 more words not shown)
- AScientists should not(15 more words not shown)
- BThe conclusion that(15 more words not shown)
- CModerate consumption of(20 more words not shown)
- DRed wine consumption(17 more words not shown)
- EBeer and distilled(13 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
This is broad enough that I don't have one particular statement to predict. We need something the writer would likely accept based on the proposed grape-compound explanation and the findings—not just something that sounds plausible about alcohol.
Working the answers
- A
The writer doesn't say to avoid investigating beer and spirits. Criticizing the failure to study wine separately isn't an instruction to stop studying other drinks.
- B
Alcohol's harmful effect on lipid processing is expressly accepted. The later findings add other effects to consider; they don't make the author reject that established harm.
- CCorrect
This follows the central explanation: the apparent benefits may come from compounds in grapes, rather than alcohol alone. Replacing grapes with plums or apples would remove the proposed source, so this is the expectation that best fits the writer's view. It is a likely implication of the hypothesis, not proof that no other fruit could ever contain a helpful compound.
- D
Later research found identical results for white and red wine. The early red-wine finding isn't the final account.
- E
No beneficial ingredients in beer or spirits are identified. The discussion proposes that wine has something distinctive; it doesn't extend that finding to other drinks.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.