PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 18
The probability of avoiding heart disease is increased(34 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(12 more words not shown)
- AThe argument ignores(19 more words not shown)
- BThe argument fails(21 more words not shown)
- CThe argument presumes,(16 more words not shown)
- DThe argument fails(13 more words not shown)
- EThe argument fails(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Avoiding heart disease is one part of good health. It isn't the whole thing.
The argument gives us a path from avoiding dairy to eating less fat, and from avoiding fat to a better chance of avoiding heart disease. Let's grant those stated relationships. We still need to ask what else happens when dairy is removed from the diet.
Could cutting something out reduce one risk while creating another problem? For example, a diet change might avoid a harmful effect but also remove something the body needs. That's a possibility the argument hasn't addressed, not a claim about what dairy actually does. The point is that one health benefit doesn't establish an overall improvement if other health effects are left out.
What we’re looking for
So when the conclusion moves to maintaining good health, my objection is broader than whether this reduces one disease risk. For the flaw question, look for the missing comparison: what benefits or other consequences might we lose by eliminating the food? We need the whole health picture before turning the specified benefit into a conclusion about overall health.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The practice is eating dairy foods. The argument focuses on a possible downside of that practice through dietary fat and heart disease, but doesn't consider possible downsides of eliminating it. Even if avoiding dairy helped reduce the stated risk, removing it could cause another health problem. That would undermine the move from one favorable consequence to a greater probability of good health overall.
- B
The argument doesn't claim dairy avoidance is the only route to a better health outcome. Other ways of reducing heart-disease risk could exist without showing that this way fails. The problem isn't overlooking alternative methods; it's overlooking possible costs of the method being assessed.
- C
The conclusion predicts an increased probability of good health. It doesn't state a general rule that people ought to eliminate everything carrying some risk. A statement about what effect a choice has is different from a recommendation that everyone should make that choice.
- D
The evidence is relevant. A relationship between diet and heart disease does bear on health, even though it doesn't settle the full health question. We shouldn't confuse incomplete support with support that has no connection to the conclusion. A identifies the particular missing part: other consequences of removing the food.
- E
The author doesn't promise that everyone avoiding dairy will definitely be healthy. The conclusion, like the premises, speaks in terms of probability. So there is no jump here from “more likely” to “certain.” The objection is that even the claimed increase in overall health probability needs consideration of effects beyond the one disease risk.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.