medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Nutritionist: Traditional diets in Mediterranean regions are often praised for their health benefits. However, many people forget that these diets also involve high consumption of locally produced olive oil, which is high in monounsaturated fats. Studies have shown that monounsaturated fats can significantly lower the risk of heart disease. Therefore, any diet that excludes olive oil is likely to be less healthy than a Mediterranean diet.
The nutritionist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- overlooks that the heart-protective fats credited to olive oil could be obtained from other foods a diet might include.
- neglects the possibility that certain individuals are physiologically unable to tolerate olive oil at the levels these diets require.
- assumes that the Mediterranean diet enjoys markedly greater popularity among health-conscious eaters than its rival diets do.
- depends on the heart-disease studies it cites having been carried out exclusively within the Mediterranean regions in question.
- treats the reduction of heart-disease risk as the sole determinant of how healthy any given diet can be said to be.
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