Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 22

Incorrect. While this answer does raise another possible source of pathogenic infections, it doesn't connect those foods to the group that follows the guidelines precisely. Without that connection, this answer choice doesn't point out a possibility the argument overlooks in reaching its conclusion that the guidelines don't work.

Incorrect. The stimulus already implies that this is true since it states that those who do follow the guidelines are "more likely" to contract diseases from meat pathogens than those who don't follow them.

Incorrect. Even if they're not readily detectable, the stimulus establishes that a certain group does get these diseases more frequently than another, so it's out of scope how difficult it was to reach that determination.

Incorrect. The stimulus argues that the current guidelines are counterproductive, so the author would argue that they're not the appropriate set of recommendations. Therefore, this possibility isn't ignored by the author.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Those who follow the guidelines to avoid meat-based pathogens are also those most likely to contract diseases caused by these pathogens. Therefore, the guidelines must not work.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus follows a common pattern on the LSAT. A law or a guideline that's meant to prevent a problem is associated with higher levels of that problem, leading to a conclusion that the guideline/law doesn't work, or it's counterproductive. The answer to this type of question is always the same—places that implement laws to address an issue, or people that follow particular guidelines, are more susceptible to that problem.

Here, those who are likely to follow guidelines on handling meat "precisely" are probably those who are more likely to get meat-based pathogenic diseases—which is why they're following those guidelines in the first place. So even if that group has more instances of disease than others who don't follow the guideline, the guidelines could still be preventing that group from getting the diseases even more frequently.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the common pattern to this type of question seen on the LSAT. If those most likely to follow the guidelines are those most susceptible to these diseases, then they could have a higher rate than those who don't precisely follow the guidelines because of this increased susceptibility, while still having a lower rate than they would if they didn't follow the guidelines. That would explain the data while leading to the conclusion that the guidelines do work, thus undermining the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion on the LSAT is anti-causal—stating that a law, treatment, or set of guidelines don't work because they're correlated with a higher rate of the problem they're designed to solve—the correct answer tends to point out that these things are generally adopted by those who have a higher rate of the problem to begin with.

To highlight an extreme example, it'd be like saying that a higher percentage of people who are on antibiotics are sick, so therefore antibiotics must not only not cure disease, but actually cause it. Of course not! The reason people are on antibiotics to begin with is because they're sick!