Q4 - A recent study monitored

[QIAOH648]

Can anyone explain #4?

Thank you~

[smiller]

Apologies for our slow reply. We're catching up with some recent questions that slipped by us.

This is a Match the Flaw question. We're being asked to identify the argument in the stimulus, then identify the flaw in that argument, then find the answer that exhibits the same flaw.

The premise in this argument states that some people's blood pressure became lower while they were petting animals. This is describing a correlation. The two things happened at the same time, but we don't know anything else about the relationship between the the two events.

The conclusion makes a claim of causation, stating that owning a pet would cause these people to have lower blood pressure. This is a classic flaw that frequently appears in LSAT LR: concluding that a causal relationship exists based on evidence that merely describes a correlation.

However, there's another potential flaw in the argument. The study describes a drop in blood pressure that occurs while people are petting animals in the laboratory. The conclusion makes a claim about a more general, long-term effect of people having lower average blood pressure.

Answer choice (D) is correct.

Choice (D) exhibits this second flaw. it describes what happens to people when riding in a boat for a few minutes, then jumps from that to a conclusion about a more general, longer-term result. It's not completely clear whether it also exhibits the first flaw, since the phrase "is relaxing" in the premise might indicate causation. But we have a definite match for the second flaw and a possible match for the first one.

Choice (A) jumps from a premise about curing an ailment to a conclusion about preventing it. That's not as good of a match.
Choice (B) doesn't include a causal flaw or a temporary vs. long-term flaw.
Choice (C) talks about getting rid of something that doesn't produce a certain result (enjoyment).
Choice (E) doesn't include a causal flaw or a temporary vs. long-term flaw.