hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In a clinical trial, patients who took a new cholesterol drug had 25 percent fewer heart attacks over five years than patients who received no treatment. The drug's manufacturer concluded that the drug directly prevents heart attacks and should be prescribed broadly to at-risk patients.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the manufacturer's conclusion?
- The drug is somewhat more expensive to manufacture than several older cholesterol medications already approved for widespread use.
- Heart attack rates in the general population have declined gradually over the past several decades due to numerous public health factors.
- Patients taking the drug reported that their monthly checkups felt more thorough than any previous medical visits they recalled.
- The new cholesterol drug is completely unable to lower any patient's cholesterol level by any measurable amount whatsoever.
- Patients given the drug also had to attend monthly checkups that included diet and exercise counseling, unlike the untreated group.
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 these statements?
- 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?