PrepTest 127, Section 1, Question 20
A recent study suggests that consuming three glasses(111 more words not shown)
The critics' argument is most(8 more words not shown)
- Ainappropriately attributes the(16 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses the risk(9 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(20 more words not shown)
- Dfails to address(17 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the difference(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The opening study makes me wonder what else distinguishes people who drink three glasses of wine daily. A study's reported association can leave questions about the explanation. But we need to follow the critics' argument rather than stop with a concern about the original study.
The critics use a particular definition of binge drinking: drinking once a week or less, with three or more drinks on those occasions. Whatever other definition we might use outside this question, this is the group described here. It is different from the people drinking three glasses every day.
The critics say the binge drinkers have more sudden fatal heart attacks. They then treat that risk as a reason three glasses of wine daily would not improve health overall, because the heart-attack risk would cancel the stroke benefit.
What we’re looking for
Can evidence about occasional drinking establish the effects of a daily pattern? That is where I hesitate. I might also ask whether some other characteristic of the binge drinkers explains their heart-attack risk, or whether different alcoholic drinks matter. But the direct comparison already has a problem: the evidence and the conclusion concern different drinking patterns. For the flaw question, I want an answer explaining why we cannot simply transfer the first group's risk to the second.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The critics attribute the heart-attack consequences associated with binge drinking to people who regularly drink three glasses of wine daily. But drinking occasionally and drinking every day are different patterns. The evidence has not established that their health effects are the same.
There is also a quantity difference. “Three or more” could include someone drinking eleven drinks in one session, whereas the daily pattern specifies three. Perhaps the heavier sessions account for much of the observed risk. We do not have to prove either pattern safer; we need to see that the critics have not justified carrying the binge-drinking risk over to the daily three-glass group.
- B
The critics distinguish heart attacks from strokes and claim that a risk of the former outweighs a benefit concerning the latter. Comparing two health effects is not the same as confusing them. The unsupported step is assigning the binge drinkers' heart-attack risk to the daily drinkers.
- C
Differences among drinks are worth considering, which makes this tempting. But C attributes a blanket assumption that there are no significant differences between wine and other alcoholic beverages in either benefits or risks. The critics need not hold that broad view. They explicitly discuss binge drinkers as the people most likely to drink three glasses of wine in one day, and could think wine has some distinctive benefits while still transferring the group's heart-attack risk to daily wine drinkers. A identifies that unsupported transfer directly.
- D
The critics expressly address the reduction in stroke risk: they say it is negated by an increased risk of sudden heart attack. We may reject the evidence behind that comparison, but they have not simply ignored the stroke benefit.
- E
Distinguishing fatal strokes from less severe strokes could matter in a fuller health assessment. But the passage's central error does not depend on lumping those strokes together. Even with a careful severity distinction, the critics would still need evidence that the heart-attack findings for binge drinkers apply to daily three-glass drinkers.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.