LSAT Explanation PT 38, S1, Q6: Every year, new reports appear concerning

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument above? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Every year, new reports appear concerning the health risks posed by certain substances, such as coffee and sugar.

Premise 2: One year an article claimed that coffee is dangerous to one's health. The next year, another article argued that coffee has some benefits for one's health.

Conclusion: From these contradictory opinions, we see that experts are useless for guiding one's decisions about one's health.

Now, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question about the argument: "Are the two articles' claims about coffee's health effects truly contradictory?"

The question type of this problem is Flaw, and we are asked to identify a flaw in the argument above.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

a) The argument takes for granted that coffee is dangerous to one's health.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not assume that coffee is dangerous to one's health. Instead, it points out the contradictory opinions on coffee's health effects.

b) The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that one always wants expert guidance in making decisions about one's health.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not make any assumptions about what people want from experts. The argument is focused on the usefulness of expert opinions, not whether people want them or not.

c) The argument fails to consider the nature of expert opinion in areas other than health.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument's conclusion is specifically about experts guiding decisions about one's health. Other areas of expertise are outside the scope of the argument.

d) The argument presumes, without providing justification, that because expert opinion is trustworthy in one case, it must therefore be trustworthy in all cases.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not make any assumptions about the trustworthiness of expert opinions in all cases. In fact, the argument is questioning the usefulness of expert opinions in guiding health decisions.

e) The argument fails to consider that coffee may be harmful to one's health in some respects and beneficial in others.

- This is the correct answer. The argument assumes that the two articles' claims about coffee's health effects are contradictory when, in fact, they may not be. Coffee could have both harmful and beneficial effects on one's health.

In summary, the correct answer is E, as it accurately identifies a flaw in the argument. The argument fails to consider that the two articles' claims about coffee's health effects may not be contradictory, as coffee could have both harmful and beneficial effects on one's health.