hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Nutrition Researcher A: "Our study shows that participants who took the new supplement reported less joint pain than those on the placebo, so the supplement should be recommended to arthritis patients." Nutrition Researcher B: "The pain reduction you found is real, but it appeared only in the subgroup that also increased their physical activity during the trial; among participants whose activity level stayed constant, the supplement group reported no less pain than the placebo group. Recommending the supplement to arthritis patients generally is premature."
Nutrition Researcher A and Nutrition Researcher B are committed to disagreeing about whether
- the study's overall finding justifies recommending the supplement to arthritis patients as a general matter
- participants who took the supplement reported, on average, less joint pain than those given the placebo
- increased physical activity during the trial was associated with a reduction in participants' reported joint pain
- arthritis patients would be willing to combine a new supplement regimen with increased physical activity
- the study's design included a placebo group against which the supplement group's outcomes were compared
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- 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?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?