top of page

LSAT Preptest 154, Section 1, Question 19

"Medical researcher: At the Flegco Corporation…"

Explanation

This question is looking to evaluate the argument's logical structure and identify a flaw in the reasoning based on the information provided. The argument's conclusion is in sentence 3, and the support for this conclusion is in sentence 2.

A. (Correct Response) This choice indicates a flaw in the argument by highlighting that it compares two groups without ensuring they are equivalent in terms of risk factors for back injury. If the group wearing back belts was more likely to engage in riskier tasks or lift heavier objects, which could inherently lead to a higher rate of back injuries, then the argument's conclusion that back belts do not help might be based on a flawed comparison. The increased incidence of back injuries in the back belt-wearing group could be due to these additional risk factors rather than the ineffectiveness of the back belts themselves.


B. The argument's focus is on the relationship between back belt use and back injuries within a specific company, not a comparison with other companies.


C. It suggests the argument is assuming causation solely from correlation. While this may be a flaw in many arguments, the correct flaw here pertains to the comparison of groups with potentially different risk factors.


D. It doesn't address the argument's comparison of different groups within Flegco, instead discussing a general confusion between causation and prevention.


E. The argument does not touch on the necessity or sufficiency of factors for producing an effect; it is concerned with the effectiveness of back belts based on the comparison of two groups.

bottom of page