easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A nutritionist found that individuals who consume at least three servings of leafy greens per day have a 30% lower incidence of heart disease than those who do not. Based on this, the nutritionist concluded that eating more leafy greens improves cardiovascular health.
The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it
- infers that one factor produces a benefit merely from an observed statistical association with that benefit.
- generalizes about an entire population from a small study group that is not representative of that population.
- assumes that leafy greens are the single lone influence on every individual's cardiovascular outcomes.
- neglects to state precisely what measured quantity of greens counts as one single daily serving.
- concludes that leafy greens must improve health solely because no study has yet shown that they do not.
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