PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 12
Researcher: Research has shown that inhaling the scent(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AMany, if not(22 more words not shown)
- BSome people who(17 more words not shown)
- CAt least some(21 more words not shown)
- DIn anyone for(16 more words not shown)
- EReduced stress diminishes(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Feeling a little calmer isn't automatically the same as avoiding an illness.
Let's accept the research showing that lavender reduces stress. We might initially wonder whether simply taking a deep breath explains the effect, but the argument gives us the effect as evidence. The next step is where the gap appears: it is intense stress that can impair the immune system. Does lavender help with that level of stress, or only with ordinary tension that wasn't threatening anyone's health?
Imagine regular lavender users going from mildly stressed to even more relaxed. That would fit the first premise, but it wouldn't show that they avoided the immune problems described in the second.
There's another concern, too. Even a relaxing habit can have harmful effects elsewhere. Think of the problem with reasoning that smoking must improve health just because someone finds it relaxing. We aren't claiming lavender has those harms. We're asking whether a benefit from reduced stress could be offset by another effect.
What we’re looking for
The necessary-assumption question asks what the argument needs to rely on. An answer might address whether users face the relevant level of stress or whether other harms defeat the supposed benefit. Let's look for a required connection, without demanding that it resolve every concern.
Working the answers
- A
We only need to assess lavender. Other scents could affect illness in entirely different ways without changing the proposed lavender connection. The argument doesn't need a broad claim about how many scents work by reducing stress.
- BCorrect
At least some regular users must otherwise face enough stress to impair their immune systems. If all of them were only mildly stressed, the evidence about illness caused by intense stress wouldn't connect to this group. B supplies that connection. It doesn't prove the whole argument or rule out other harms; it addresses a requirement of the particular explanation the researcher gives.
- C
The users could be unusually susceptible to illness and still benefit from lavender. A reduction means less illness than they would otherwise experience, not necessarily less illness than the average person experiences. Their starting position relative to other people isn't the required link.
- D
Reducing stress doesn't have to be the primary way lavender helps. Perhaps it also affects health through another process that matters even more. The argument needs its stress-based explanation to contribute, not to outrank every other possible mechanism in every person.
- E
This says reduced stress can help only people whose immune systems are impaired by stress. The argument doesn't have to rule out benefits for everyone else. It needs some lavender users to fall within the relevant group, as B says; it doesn't need that group to be the only group that could ever benefit.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.