medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Researcher: Our study found that people who own dogs are 20 percent less likely to suffer from heart disease. Therefore, owning a dog is an effective way to improve one's cardiovascular health.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the researcher's conclusion?
- People already enjoying robust cardiovascular health are the ones most likely to have the stamina that caring for a dog demands.
- Even among committed dog owners who exercise their pets daily, a notable number still go on to develop serious heart disease.
- The price of premium dog food, grooming, and routine veterinary care has risen quite sharply across most regions in recent years.
- The study deliberately drew its large pool of participants from a broad range of different countries spread across several continents.
- Cats, rabbits, and several other common household companion animals show no comparable protective association with heart health.
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