hard · LSAT
A study found that retirees who own pets visit the doctor 20 percent less frequently than retirees who do not own pets. A health columnist concluded that pet ownership helps improve the health of retirees, thereby reducing their medical visits.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the columnist's argument?
- Retirees already in poor health are far less able to look after an animal and therefore far less likely to take one in.
- The study lumped together retirees with dogs and those with other animals, such as cats or birds.
- Recent medical advances have lowered doctor-visit frequency across all retirees, whether or not they own pets.
- The expense of pet food and veterinary care exceeds the average cost of the doctor visits avoided.
- Retirees who own pets are more likely than others to follow their physicians' dietary recommendations.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?