easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Studies show that patients who consume high amounts of green tea tend to have lower rates of cardiovascular disease. Therefore, drinking green tea is an effective way to improve heart health.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- leaps from an observed link between tea drinking and heart health to claiming the tea itself produces the benefit, ignoring other causes.
- overlooks that some people who never drink green tea at all nonetheless still display notably low observed rates of cardiovascular disease.
- supposes that green tea is the one and only dietary factor even capable of exerting any meaningful effect on a person's cardiovascular outcomes.
- rests its broad conclusion about heart health upon a sample of patients far too skewed and unbalanced to be at all genuinely representative.
- fails to specify the exact daily quantity of green tea one must consume before any measurable cardiovascular health benefit begins to appear.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- 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?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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