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 lifestyle habits, such as exercising and eating far more fresh, leafy vegetables.
- Butter is a simple natural product churned directly from fresh dairy cream, whereas margarine is an extensively processed and chemically manufactured food product.
- Since the early 1990s the retail price of ordinary butter has climbed considerably and steadily relative to the comparatively cheaper price of common margarine.
- Margarine was promoted so aggressively that it became the single most heavily advertised packaged food product of that entire decade across nearly every market.
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