medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A nutritionist argues that because a recent study showed that people who consume at least three servings of leafy greens daily have significantly lower blood pressure than those who do not, increasing leafy green consumption is the most effective way for any individual to manage hypertension.
Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the nutritionist's argument?
- It takes for granted that blood pressure is the sole relevant metric for judging an individual's overall cardiovascular health and risk profile.
- It fails to establish that three daily servings of leafy greens is a statistically significant quantity for the broader general population.
- From an observed association between greens and lower blood pressure, it leaps to the unsupported verdict that greens are the single best remedy.
- It ignores the real possibility that certain individuals who already consume ample leafy greens may nonetheless still suffer from high blood pressure.
- It assumes that any dietary adjustment shown to be capable of lowering blood pressure must thereby eliminate a person's hypertension entirely.
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