medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In the 1990s, a study found that people who ate large amounts of margarine had higher rates of heart disease than those who ate butter. This was surprising because margarine was marketed as a heart-healthy alternative to the saturated fats found in butter.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
- The margarine of that era was loaded with trans fats, a class of fat later shown to damage cardiovascular health even more severely than the saturated fat in butter.
- People who chose margarine in the 1990s also tended to adopt other heart-protective habits, such as eating more vegetables.
- Butter is a natural product churned from cream, whereas margarine is an extensively processed food.
- Since the 1990s the price of butter has climbed considerably relative to that of margarine.
- Margarine was the single most heavily advertised food product of the entire decade.
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?