Q20 - A recenty study suggests that

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi MLSAT folks!
I've been solving the flaw practice set 1 in the preptest book, and came across a question that I luckily got right but didn't understand why I did (since it is important to know for what reasons I eliminated the wrong answer choices as well as know for what reasons I circled the correct answer choice, right?)..

I picked (A) - correct answer, but I was left with (A) and (D). I was able to eliminate B, C, and E just right off the bat (hopefully for right reasons) but I wasn't able to eliminate (D) fully, but rather left it and just picked (A) and moved on since I spent about 5 minutes on this problem. Could somebody explain to me why (D) is incorrect and (A) is correct?

The core I had was:
the decrease in the risk of stroke associated with drinking three glasses of wine daily is negated by its associated increased risk of sudden heart attack THEREFORE drinking three glasses of wine daily would not benefit health overall.

Also, I don't time myself on these as I am aiming for accuracy at the moment (since I am not yet perfect at identifying cores and especially spotting the gaps -- feel like there is nothing wrong with most of the arguments, which definitely should not be the case, I know). Do you agree that I should be aiming for accuracy if I am not understanding the question types fully before going on to time myself on problems? Also, do you suggest that instead of solving mini sections from preptests, that I look for particular question types to solve (like get a bunch of flaw questions for example and solve and resolve them -- as I am currently in the flaw lesson, rather than solving just an LR with all bunch of different types of questions?)

[jiyoonsim]

Premise:
Recent study says having 3 glasses of wine per day drops the stroke risk. Critics say this isn't right, saying
- binge drinkers are the ppl most likely to drink 3 glasses of wine in a single day
- binge drinkers are also more likely to die from heart attack.

So the critics say, the drop in stroke risk related with the wine consumption is negated by the increased possibility of heart attack. Thus critics say, having 3 glasses of wine per day doesn't help at all.

But let's look at the evidence group carefully. Critics use binge drinkers as their evidence. What critics are essentially saying is, since binge drinkers drink 3 glasses of wine and more likely to die from heard attack, we shouldn't drink 3 glasses of wine per day. Does this make sense? No, because not everyone is binge drinkers.

In another example:
Recent study suggests that 5 tea spoons of sugar every day is good for your health. Critics say this is wrong, since obese ppl are the people most likely to have 5 tea spoons of sugar, and more likely to suffer from heart failure. So according to the critics, having 5 tea spoons of sugar per day is bad for your health, since it negates the good effect by increasing the risk of heart failure.

Obese people are not the general population, yet the stem assumes what is special about obese people can also be found in general population. That's what the stem is doing - it equates binge drinkers with general population. And that's what A) is saying, in a complex wording.

B) isn't right. Sudden alcohol-incuded heart attacks are not mentioned in the stem.
C) is tricky. I'd say C is incorrect, since the main thing here is the health risk and wine consumption, not the kinds of drink.
D) The stem does mention the recent study and what it means by that!
E) The stem does not make distinction/scope shift about the kinds of stroke, nor it is the focus here.

As of how to study, there is a seperate forum for that. Maybe moving your questions to that forum might get you a faster answer?

[maryadkins]

Nice explanation!

You're right that the assumption is that binge drinkers are the same as people who drink 3 glasses a day. So the core of the critics' argument would be:

Binge drinkers are more likely to drink 3 glasses

+

Binge drinkers are more likely to have HA

-->

3 glasses isn't beneficial due to risk of HA being greater than risk of stroke

But binge drinkers being most likely to consume 3 or more glasses doesn't mean that everyone who consumes 3 glasses daily is a binge drinker. (In fact, we're told that binge drinkers drink once a week or less--so the people drinking 3 or more daily would not be binge drinkers by this definition.) (A) addresses this problem.

You're right that (B) and (E) are out of scope.

(C) doesn't address the gap in the core.
(D) is a premise debooster. We're told 3 glasses reduces the risk of stroke, so we go with it.

[LSAT-Chang]

Thank you both for the great explanation!!

[callie44]

Can you expand on why C is incorrect? I chose A, but I wasn't 100% confident in why C was wrong...rather I just understand that A address the largest gap in the argument. Could C also be a valid criticism of the argument? thanks

[etwcho]

I believe (C) is OOS because only wine is talked about in the stimulus and does not bring in any other alcoholic beverages.

[rinagoldfield]

Etwcho is exactly right. The argument core concerns wine specifically. (C) discusses other alcoholic beverages. This is out of scope.

[Incandenza]

Nice explanation!

You're right that the assumption is that binge drinkers are the same as people who drink 3 glasses a day. So the core of the critics' argument would be:

Binge drinkers are more likely to drink 3 glasses

+

Binge drinkers are more likely to have HA

-->

3 glasses isn't beneficial due to risk of HA being greater than risk of stroke

But binge drinkers being most likely to consume 3 or more glasses doesn't mean that everyone who consumes 3 glasses daily is a binge drinker. (In fact, we're told that binge drinkers drink once a week or less--so the people drinking 3 or more daily would not be binge drinkers by this definition.) (A) addresses this problem.

You're right that (B) and (E) are out of scope.

(C) doesn't address the gap in the core.
(D) is a premise debooster. We're told 3 glasses reduces the risk of stroke, so we go with it.

My mistake was that instead of reading the definition of binge drinkers as according to the argument, I let my common sense get a hold of me. Thus, I assumed that people who drink 3 glasses of wine daily were binge drinkers. But the argument says that binge drinkers are people who drink once a week or less, not more as one would naturally assume. So by this definition, one could drink a handle of vodka daily and not be considered a binge drinker, as long as they drank often than once a week.

[amil91]

Nice explanation!

You're right that the assumption is that binge drinkers are the same as people who drink 3 glasses a day. So the core of the critics' argument would be:

Binge drinkers are more likely to drink 3 glasses

+

Binge drinkers are more likely to have HA

-->

3 glasses isn't beneficial due to risk of HA being greater than risk of stroke

But binge drinkers being most likely to consume 3 or more glasses doesn't mean that everyone who consumes 3 glasses daily is a binge drinker. (In fact, we're told that binge drinkers drink once a week or less--so the people drinking 3 or more daily would not be binge drinkers by this definition.) (A) addresses this problem.

You're right that (B) and (E) are out of scope.

(C) doesn't address the gap in the core.
(D) is a premise debooster. We're told 3 glasses reduces the risk of stroke, so we go with it.

Could you explain how E is out of scope? I chose the correct answer, but E was a close second to me, as the critic's conclusion is saying the net health benefit would be unchanged, to me, E sheds a possibility of doubt to the 'net health benefit' idea. Also, D, to me doesn't deboost the premise, it just is a potential gap. A reduction in risk, could be very large or very small, and if it was very large, and the added risk of heart attack wasn't as large, then the critic's argument is also flawed in this respect.

Ultimately, I picked A because to me, this answer fit the 'most vulnerable' requirement of the question.

[foralexpark]

Nice explanation!

You're right that the assumption is that binge drinkers are the same as people who drink 3 glasses a day. So the core of the critics' argument would be:

Binge drinkers are more likely to drink 3 glasses

+

Binge drinkers are more likely to have HA

-->

3 glasses isn't beneficial due to risk of HA being greater than risk of stroke

But binge drinkers being most likely to consume 3 or more glasses doesn't mean that everyone who consumes 3 glasses daily is a binge drinker. (In fact, we're told that binge drinkers drink once a week or less--so the people drinking 3 or more daily would not be binge drinkers by this definition.) (A) addresses this problem.

You're right that (B) and (E) are out of scope.

(C) doesn't address the gap in the core.
(D) is a premise debooster. We're told 3 glasses reduces the risk of stroke, so we go with it.

Could you explain how E is out of scope? I chose the correct answer, but E was a close second to me, as the critic's conclusion is saying the net health benefit would be unchanged, to me, E sheds a possibility of doubt to the 'net health benefit' idea. Also, D, to me doesn't deboost the premise, it just is a potential gap. A reduction in risk, could be very large or very small, and if it was very large, and the added risk of heart attack wasn't as large, then the critic's argument is also flawed in this respect.

Ultimately, I picked A because to me, this answer fit the 'most vulnerable' requirement of the question.

(E) is out of scope because we are already given that risk of stoke will decrease. It doesn't matter how severe or less severe it is, just that it WILL decrease.
Hence the author did NOT overlook the difference.

[pewals13]

This question bothers me a bit because I'm always tempted to take "since the decrease associated with that level of consumption is negated by its associated increased risk of sudden heart attack" as a premise, is it an intermediate conclusion?

Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Great question, pewals13. “Since” is a premise indicator, but the role of the phrase you identified is a little more complicated. The critics offer a fact about binge drinkers: they’re more likely to suffer from heart attacks. The critics then latch that same fact to a different group of people, daily drinkers. The critics can’t do that!! This character shift indicates that we can’t take the “since” phrase as mere premise. Rather, it is, as you suggested, an intermediate conclusion.

The argument core is thus:

Binge drinkers often drink 3 glasses of wine in one day, and binge drinkers are at greater risk of heart attack
-->
People who drink 3 glasses each day are at greater risk of heart attack
-->
Drinking 3 glasses of wine each day would not benefit health overall

The main gap is between the first premise and the intermediate conclusion.

Keep up the great work!

[HughM388]

To create a different type of LSAT question from the information in this question we could say:

"The above information, if true, allows one to conclude:

People who drink twenty-one glasses of wine per week derive an overall health benefit from that drinking in the form of reduced risk of stroke, in contrast to people who drink only three glasses of wine once per week, because the latter derive no reduction in stroke risk and also increase their risk of suffering sudden heart attack as a result of drinking three glasses of wine only once a week."

There's something fishy about that conclusion, but according to the logic of the argument we are compelled to aver it.