medium · 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 study group that is not representative of it.
- assumes that leafy greens are the lone influence on cardiovascular outcomes.
- neglects to state precisely what quantity counts as a single serving of leafy greens.
- concludes that leafy greens improve health because no study has 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 is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- 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?