Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 19

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A trainer (who clearly doesn't understand the scientific method) cites an example of an athlete who tried stretching as a treatment for lower back pain, but it didn't work. When the athlete later used a heating pad, it cured her pain. So, the trainer concludes, heating is better for lower back pain than stretching.

Strategy Overview:
We're in EXCEPT world here, so there must be at least 4 possible ways to identify a flaw in this stimulus. Identify the conclusion and think generally for a moment about why the stimulus doesn't properly support the conclusion, but you're going to want to go ahead to the answer choices pretty quickly here—you won't be able to anticipate the correct answer clearly, since it could be anything other than a flaw in the argument.

Answer Anticipation:
The correct answer is whatever does not highlight a flaw present in the stimulus. So, it could be a neutral/irrelevant statement, a restatement of a premise, or even something that strengthens. Note that the argument is partially causal, so flaws (remember, those are wrong answers here) may attempt to break the causal link between heating and lower back pain relief.

Answer Explanation:
In the real world, we'd care about healing the injury. In LSAT-world, we only care about whether or not this is a flaw in the trainer's argument, and it isn't. The trainer only claimed heating is more effective for relieving lower back pain. She said nothing about healing.

Key Takeaway:
In the bizarro world of EXCEPT questions, it's suddenly easier to anticipate the wrong answers than the correct ones. Technically, any random unrelated statement could be a correct answer here, as long as it isn't a flaw in the stimulus. "Hamburgers don't relieve lower back pain" would have been correct. So, don't try too hard to anticipate the right answer on these. Focus on understanding the overall argument and what's wrong with it.

Incorrect. Yes, this is one of the problems with a "one-rat study," aka anecdotal evidence from a single subject. Maybe the pain relief the athlete experienced just coincidentally happened after using heating.

Incorrect. This is another correct description of an inherent problem with a sample size of one. Just because it worked for this athlete doesn't mean it works "generally."

Incorrect. Seeing a pattern here? One person's experience doesn't mean that it'll be the same for everyone, especially if some people's lower back pain is caused by something very different (say, a slipped disc) than a strenuous athletic competition.

Incorrect. Yes, maybe this athlete just stretched badly. A better stretcher might have experienced more relief. (Maybe the trainer didn't teach her the right stretches, because the trainer doesn't believe in stretching!)