PrepTest 131

Incorrect. Neither discusses non-exercise means of lowering cardio-respiratory illness risk, and the conclusion doesn't discuss it or imply that there aren't other ways of lowering that risk, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion (and thus argument) are about lowering risk of cardio-respiratory illness (the conclusion brings these in by saying "the same benefits"). If the argument concluded that vigorous exercise was better than non strenuous exercise, then downsides such as this might be relevant, but as is, it's out of scope.

Incorrect. First, benefits other than lowering the risk of cardio-respiratory illness are out of scope of this argument since the conclusion is just about those benefits. Second, even if other benefits were in scope, this answer aligns with an argument that prioritizes a study showing the benefits of vigorous exercise.

Incorrect. The perception people have of their own health is out of scope of an argument about the actual benefits to health of certain types of exercise. Additionally, this answer is about health generally, whereas the stimulus is about one specific aspect of it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A new study shows that only vigorous exercise has health benefits, so an old study showing that walking also has benefits is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument uses the results of a new study to throw out the results of an old study. However, it provides no reason to believe that the new study is right and the old study is wrong. Since there are conflicting expert opinions/study results here, there needs to be more work done to establish that one is right and the other is wrong.

Let's find an answer that says the argument sides with one study over another without providing any reason for doing so.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the Columnist decides that one of two conflicting studies is correct without establishing a reason to believe that.

Key Takeaway:
When two experts, studies, or observations yield contradictory conclusions, there has to be independent reasons given for believing one over the other. Just picking one as correct is flawed reasoning.