PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 10
Columnist: A recent research report suggests that by(43 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the columnist's(12 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(18 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(15 more words not shown)
- Coverlooks the possibility(16 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(20 more words not shown)
- Efails to show(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Vigorous exercise reducing the risk of some heart and respiratory illnesses sounds plausible. But does exercise have to be vigorous? Would a walk around the neighborhood help, or would it take something like an intense run or bike ride? The new report takes a firm position: only vigorous exercise produces these benefits.
The columnist then tells us to disregard older studies finding the same benefits from nonstrenuous walking. I would initially want to look more closely at what counts as vigorous and what the walks involved. Perhaps some feature of walking outdoors, such as being in the sun or fresh air, could matter apart from the exertion itself. Those are possibilities to investigate, not established benefits.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks where the columnist's rejection of the older findings goes wrong. Keep the disputed outcome precise: whether nonstrenuous walking lowers the chances of these particular illnesses. Other kinds of benefits or costs will not automatically resolve that question.
Working the answers
- A
There could be other ways to reduce these illness risks without settling whether walking provides the benefits reported in the older studies. This can sound like the outdoor-walking possibility we considered, but it never connects any other method to those walks. A general statement that other methods might work does not explain why the columnist should accept or reject the walking findings.
- B
Vigorous exercise could carry an injury risk and still lower the chances of the specified illnesses. The columnist is not weighing every advantage and disadvantage of exercising. An injury risk does not resolve the conflict about the benefits of nonstrenuous walking.
- C
Preventing a different disease would be an additional benefit of vigorous exercise. The disputed findings concern particular heart and respiratory illnesses. Success against other diseases does not tell us whether the older studies reached the wrong conclusion about those illnesses.
- D
Feeling healthy is different from being less likely to develop an illness. Nothing says these studies measured only people's self-perceptions. Adding a possible difference in perceived health does not explain why one set of findings should be preferred.
- ECorrect
This identifies a more direct problem: why are we treating the recent report as better evidence than the older studies? The columnist accepts the new conclusion and dismisses the conflicting older one without comparing their support.
A more recent study is not automatically more reliable. Perhaps the newer report is better, but the argument has not shown that. The disagreement between the reports gives us something to investigate; it does not by itself justify choosing the new report and throwing out the others.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.