WeakenDiff: Easy

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Researchers noticed that people with less lycopene in their blood had more strokes, so they decided lycopene must be a stroke-preventer.

Conclusion: Consuming lycopene directly lowers the likelihood of having a stroke.

Reasoning: A long-term study showed a strong correlation between low levels of lycopene in the blood and a significantly higher incidence of strokes.

Analysis: This is a classic 'correlation does not equal causation' trap. To weaken this, we should look for an alternative explanation, such as a third factor that causes both low lycopene and strokes. For instance, if people who don't eat vegetables (low lycopene) also don't exercise, the lack of exercise might be the real culprit behind the strokes. Look for an answer that suggests the correlation is coincidental or driven by another variable.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

17.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

Correct Answer
A
A directly introduces a confound: lycopene-rich fruits and vegetables also have other nutrients thought to reduce stroke risk. That provides a plausible alternative explanation for the correlation, undermining the claim that lycopene itself is the cause.
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