LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
 sunshine123
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: Jul 18, 2022
|
#96364
Howdy,

I was hoping to have my understanding of the stimulus looked over. First, I don't think the author's conclusion is entirely warranted: just because those that drank five or more cups of coffee had a higher than normal risk of heart disease does NOT mean that drinking 2 cups of coffee will reduce one's chances of getting heart disease. The author seems to be assuming, and this is the piece of reasoning I hope to have looked over, that since a lot of coffee was bad for heart disease, then less will be good.

Answer choice C shows that high coffee consumption is directly correlated with a heart disease-causing agent. To that extent, it was the stress and not the coffee responsible for the heart disease. As such, the author can no longer assume that less coffee is good for decreasing heart disease for it was not the causal factor in the first place; moreover, the author is no longer warranted in assuming that drinking two cups will benefit heart disease since again, it was the stress responsible for the heart disease, and that assumption seems to depend on it being the coffee that caused the heart disease

Thank you,
Sunshine
User avatar
 katehos
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Mar 31, 2022
|
#96390
Hi Sunshine!

Fantastic work with this problem, you're exactly right! Answer choice (C) weakens the argument by showing there was an alternate cause that was overlooked: stress.

Keep up the good work :)
Kate
User avatar
 sunshine123
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: Jul 18, 2022
|
#96430
Thank you for the reply Kate :)

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.