Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 24

Incorrect. The relevant comparison is between the French and the North Americans/other populations, not subsets of the French population.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — French people eat a lot of fat but have a low incidence of heart disease
Explanation (Premise) — They drink a lot of red wine
Relevant fact — North Americans have close to the highest level of heart disease
Conclusion/Recommendation — (Goal) To be healthier without cutting fat, North Americans should drink more red wine

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a very interesting structure in that it falls into two common patterns on the exam. It starts with a phenomenon/explanation, and then it moves on to making a recommendation.

Generally, when an argument brings up a phenomenon and an explanation, that explanation is causal and the argument commits a correlation/causation flaw. Here, however, the explanation is presented as a premise of the argument, not the main point. As such, we shouldn't expect an answer that goes after that connection.

Instead, we should focus on the recommendation in the conclusion. It sets out a goal for North Americans—be healthier without cutting fat out of their diets. And the approach is to be more like the French—drink more red wine. If we accept the explanation as true—that the most likely explanation is that red wine mitigates the ill effects of fat consumption on the heart—isn't the conclusion true?

Nope—because of a subtle shift. While heart health might increase with the consumption of more red wine, North Americans might end up with other health issues that more than make up for their healthier hearts. In generalizing to overall health, this conclusion is flawed.

As such, we should look for any answer that establishes negative health effects of red wine.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a negative health effect of drinking more red wine among North Americans. If it would lead to liver problems and other illnesses, then even if it decreases heart disease, it might not increase overall health, weakening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Knowing the common patterns on the exam can be helpful, even when the argument breaks or alters that pattern. Knowing it can help you identify what's different in that specific case and help you avoid a trap answer, such as (E) here.

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses the French population as a whole, so a few outliers that don't conform to the norm have no effect on the argument.

Incorrect. The conclusion states that a certain change (more red wine) will have a given effect. There being something else that would work even better doesn't affect that connection. The conclusion would need to state that drinking more red wine is the best way to have a healthier heart before a relative ("healthiest") answer like this would be in play.

Incorrect. This answer attempts to undermine the causal connection between red wine and heart disease. However, that wasn't a gap in this argument. And even if it were, this answer wouldn't do so because the argument has already established that there are multiple factors in heart disease—including fat consumption. Without exploring these other aspects with respect to these other regions—especially fat consumption—this answer is incomplete.