Passage Summary: A new study says you have to exercise hard to get healthy, so a columnist says we should ignore old studies that said walking was just as good.

Conclusion: We should disregard previous studies that claimed nonstrenuous walking provides the same health benefits as vigorous exercise.

Reasoning: A new research report states that vigorous exercise only lowers the risk of certain illnesses if the exercise is actually vigorous.

Analysis: The columnist is making a bold leap by assuming that a single new report automatically invalidates all previous research. In the world of logic, just because a new study says 'X is true' doesn't mean an old study saying 'X is false' is immediately proven wrong; they are simply two conflicting pieces of evidence. The columnist fails to consider that the new report itself could be flawed or that both types of exercise might offer different but equally valid benefits. Look for an answer that points out the argument's uncritical acceptance of one study over others.