LSAT 149 – Section 4 – Question 22

LSAT 149 - Section 4 - Question 22

December 2017

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:59

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT149 S4 Q22
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
A
7%
154
B
2%
152
C
2%
153
D
3%
154
E
86%
164
142
148
155
 +Medium 147.325 +SubsectionMedium

A recent study revealed that people who follow precisely all the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by pathogenic microorganisms in meat-based foods are more likely to contract diseases caused by these pathogens than are those who deviate considerably from the standard recommendations. Hence, the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by these pathogens must be counterproductive.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author argues that the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection must be counterproductive. She supports this by noting that those who follow the recommendations are more likely to contract diseases than are those who do not follow the recommendations.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a correlation and concludes that one thing causes the other without ruling out alternative hypotheses. The author overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people who follow the recommendations do so because they’re already at heightened risk of contracting infection!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe there’s something completely separate that causes some people to both follow the recommendations and be at higher risk of disease.

A
Pathogenic microorganisms can reproduce in foods that are not meat-based.
This is irrelevant to the author’s argument. We’re talking about meat-based foods specifically, so information about non-meat-based foods wouldn’t make any difference!
B
Many people do follow precisely all the standard recommendations for avoidance of infection by pathogenic microorganisms in meat-based foods.
This is irrelevant to the author’s argument. It doesn’t matter how many people follow the standard recommendations—whether it’s a lot or just a few, the fact remains that they are more likely than others to contract the diseases in question.
C
Not all diseases caused by microorganisms have readily recognizable symptoms.
The argument doesn’t require (and therefore doesn’t overlook) any discussion of symptoms. We can assume that the premises are true, meaning that the people we’re told have or have not contracted the diseases have been accurately diagnosed.
D
Preventing infection by pathogenic microorganisms is simply a matter of following the appropriate set of recommendations.
If (D) were true, then the author’s argument would be strengthened: we would be able to pinpoint the content of the standard recommendations as “inappropriate” and perhaps “counterproductive”. But we’re looking for a something the argument overlooks, not a strengthener!
E
Those most concerned with avoiding pathogenic infections from meat-based foods are those most susceptible to them.
This is overlooked by the author’s causation assumption. It’s possible that the recommendations cause disease contraction, but it’s also possible that those who follow the recommendations are a self-selected group who were more likely to contract the diseases to begin with!

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 149 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply