Q19

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You're right about this argument lolitatrekkie, Efraim does suggest that avoiding one health problem can create another. The problem though is that we need to make sure we focussed on the conclusion. I mean, like a laser!

The argument concludes that ignoring journalists' advice poses less health risk than following their advice. That's a comparison, one of the LSAT's three reasoning structures: conditional logic, causation, and comparison. When you see it, think about the evidence and whether it fits some choice between two options or a judgement about whether something is overall good, or overall bad. In this case, the argument indicates that there is health risks to both paths: following the journalists advice or not. But which is greater? The argument assumes that the health risks associated with following the journalists advice is greater. So, answer choice (D) is correct.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is too specific. While they cannot avoid all health risks completely, they can still avoid those risks they're trying to avoid completely.
(B) supports the premise that people will become anxious.
(C) is out of scope. So long as people follow the advice, the advice need not be unanimous.
(E) supports the premise that people will become anxious.

#officialexplanation

[lolitatrekkie]

Why is answer choice A wrong and not D?

I thought it was A because Efraim is saying that people who follow the advice from popular press to avoid various health risks end up with a major health risk (anxiety). and I thought it was suppose to describe it as a contradiction.

Thank you!