Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 1 · Question 19

While this is a possibility, it's not a possibility that impacts the argument. The first group definitely had the self-help book, whereas the second group only might have bought the book on their own. Statistically, the first group will have more families with the self-help book.

While this is a possibility, it's not a possibility that impacts the argument. The first group definitely had a self-help book, whereas the second group only might have accessed medical self-help information. Statistically, the first group will have more families with relevant information.

While this answer choice plays into the correlation/causation error in reasoning, it doesn't match with the argument. The argument doesn't treat a given cause as if it only has one effect. Rather, it treats two potential causes—the book and good health—as being related to each other.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Two similar groups were selected for an experiment. The only known difference is that the first group was given a medical self-help book; that group saw a doctor less. Since healthy people go to the doctor less, the book must have made people healthier.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is dealing with a jump between correlation and causation, but there's a wrinkle in this question compared to most correlation/causation questions.

Usually, the premises are correlative, and the conclusion is causal. That's true of this argument, but there's also a causal premise, stating that good health leads to fewer doctor visits.

Normally, we'd expect an answer that points out the correlation/causation flaw. However, since this argument adds a causal premise, there's a good chance that's going to tie into the correct answer, possible stating that this explanation for how the self-help book decreased medical visits isn't related to good health, but rather some other explanation.

Answer Explanation:
Unlike (C), this answer deals with multiple potential causes. The argument conflates a decrease in doctor visits because of self-treatment and because of being healthier. Rephrasing this answer, it would state that both self-treatment and good health contribute to fewer doctor visits without either causing the other. In other words, the self-help book might have decreased doctor visits through a method other than making people healthier.

Key Takeaway:
Correlation/causation errors in reasoning are some of the most frequent errors tested on the LSAT. Here, they add a relatively rare wrinkle by adding in a causal premise, but if you're strong on the foundations, you can adapt when the writers change things up.

This answer reverses the connection, stating that a state of affairs (such as being healthier) could lead to having a self-help book. The argument assumes just the opposite of that. Additionally, we know that the families in the study were given this book, so an answer that deals with families buying it on their own is out of scope.