medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A nutritionist claims that drinking green tea daily improves long-term memory. A reviewer states: Each of the following, if true, would weaken the nutritionist's claim, except for one finding, which would instead leave the claim untouched.
The finding that would leave the nutritionist's claim untouched is most likely one that
- neither casts doubt on nor lends support to the link between green tea and memory, but is simply irrelevant to it.
- most strongly establishes, on its own, that drinking green tea is what is responsible for the improved long-term memory.
- shows that drinking green tea actively harms long-term memory, the very capacity the nutritionist claims it improves.
- of the five findings stated, happens to use the most forceful, sweeping, and grammatically absolute phrasing throughout.
- directly establishes the reverse order, that having improved long-term memory is what causes people to drink more green tea.
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