medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Research shows that people who drink at least three cups of green tea per day have significantly lower rates of heart disease than those who drink no tea. Yet when researchers ran a double-blind clinical trial giving green-tea extract to heart-disease patients, the extract showed no therapeutic effect whatsoever on their condition.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
- Green tea works only to lower the chance of developing heart disease in the first place, not to improve the condition of those who already have it.
- The heart-disease patients enrolled in the clinical trial were, on average, considerably older than the typical habitual green-tea drinkers studied earlier.
- The clinical trial ran for six months, a duration that is the widely accepted standard length for rigorous studies of this particular kind.
- Many heart-disease patients would far rather rely on conventional pharmaceuticals than on any herbal extract whose benefits remain uncertain to them.
- Green-tea extract has been shown to reverse advanced heart disease far more effectively than any prescription drug presently available to patients.
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