Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 19

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require that the individual counseling was ineffective—just that the hatha yoga had a positive effect on top of whatever was provided by that counseling.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't state that hatha yoga is a tool that can be used by most people to help them quit smoking—just that it's a powerful tool for doing so. Even if only a minority of smokers can practice it once a week, it could still be a tool to help in quitting.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Group 1 - Hatha yoga + counseling
Group 2 - Self-help groups + counseling
Results - Both groups saw the same decline in smoking
Conclusion - Hatha yoga helps to quit smoking

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a big ball of common LSAT elements—a study, a causal conclusion, and a comparison! Let's untangle it all to figure out what's going on.

Let's start with the study. It was a clinical trial, and no more information is provided, so there's no hint of a sampling flaw. However, there is a correlation raised—between yoga/counseling and a reduction in smoking; and between self-help groups/counseling and a reduction in smoking. From this, it concludes that yoga causes people to quit smoking ("helping people quit").

Wait, what? There was a jump there—we had three elements in the study (yoga, self-help groups, counseling), but only one shows up in the conclusion. This is where the comparison comes in and intersects with the Correlation/Causation flaw.

The two groups saw an equal reduction in smoking, so the jump from correlation to causation is the same for both groups. However, since the effect is established as equivalent, we should compare the potential factors—especially since Correlation/Causation flaws frequently have answers that bring up alternative factors.

Here, the argument concludes that hatha yoga helps people quit smoking. However, there's another factor at play here in Group 1—they also went through counseling. If the counseling was wholly responsible for the reduction in smoking, then the yoga could have had nothing to do with it. Group 2 also went through counseling, so if the reductions are completely due to counseling, that would explain the results for both groups. That would also mean that the self-help groups did nothing.

For it to be true that hatha yoga has a positive impact on attempts to quit smoking, then, it requires that traditional self-help groups also help in quitting smoking. Otherwise, as we noted, the results are due to the counseling. Let's find an answer establishing that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation. The conclusion that hatha helps people quit smoking (along with counseling) is based on a comparison to the other group that met with a self-help group (along with counseling). If self-help groups aren't powerful tools to help quit smoking, then the reduction in smoking can be attributed solely to the counseling, and the hatha did nothing!

Key Takeaway:
When a common type of logic (mainly causal, comparative, conditional) shows up in a question, it's almost always related to the correct answer. Be sure to work through the logic to understand how it plays into the argument, and how it can help you anticipate the correct answer.

Incorrect. The argument is about whether hatha can help people quit smoking, not whether it's good for overall health, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument speaks only to hatha yoga, so other forms of yoga are out of scope.