Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A trainer claims heating pads beat stretching because one person's back stopped hurting after they switched from stretching to using heat.

Conclusion: Heating pads are generally more effective than stretching for treating lower back pain.

Reasoning: One athlete's back pain persisted during several days of stretching but disappeared within a few days of using a heating pad.

Analysis: This argument is a masterclass in logical errors, making it a perfect 'Except' question. It jumps from a single case to a general rule (sampling error) and assumes that because the pain stopped after using the pad, the pad caused the recovery (post hoc ergo propter hoc). It also ignores the possibility that the stretching actually helped, but the results just took a few days to show up. The correct answer will be the one that does NOT describe a flaw actually present in this specific, messy logic.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

19.

The trainer's argument is vulnerable to criticism on each of the following grounds except:

Correct Answer
A
A is correct because the trainer’s conclusion is only about which method is more effective at relieving pain, not about healing the underlying injury. Criticizing the argument for not addressing healing goes beyond the scope and is not a valid flaw for the stated conclusion.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep