medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A study found that retirees who own pets visit the doctor 20 percent less frequently than retirees who do not own pets. A health columnist concluded that pet ownership helps improve the health of retirees, thereby reducing their medical visits.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the columnist's argument?
- Retirees already in poor health are far less able to look after an animal and therefore far less likely to take one in.
- The study lumped together retirees owning dogs and those owning other companion animals, such as cats or pet birds.
- Recent medical advances have lowered doctor-visit frequency across all retirees alike, whether or not they happen to own pets.
- The combined expense of pet food and routine veterinary care exceeds the average cost of the doctor visits that are avoided.
- Retirees who own pets are also more likely than other retirees to follow their physicians' dietary recommendations closely.
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