A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug

Question

A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug pravastatin, one of the effects of which is to reduce cholesterol, had about one-third fewer nonfatal heart attacks and one-third fewer deaths from coronary disease than did those not taking the drug. This result is consistent with other studies, which show that those who have heart disease often have higher than average cholesterol levels. This shows that lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease.

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument

(A) neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects

(B) fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels

(C) relies on past finding, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited

(D) draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels

(E) fails to consider that percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin

ArunSharma12 · Answer

(A) neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects

(B) fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels
 This is another possibility that risk of heart disease is reduced due to some reason other than lowering of cholesterol levels.

(C) relies on past finding, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited

(D) draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels
 relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels does not justify that lowering of cholesterol levels led to reduced risk of heart disease

(E) fails to consider that percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin
Ans: B

TheStoryteller · Answer

(A) neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects
--Wrong. The argument is only concerned with the heart disease.
(B) fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels
--Correct. States the possibility that the reduction is heart attack rates might not have been a result of reduction of cholesterol.
(C) relies on past finding, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited
--Wrong. Nothing suggests anything wrong with the data.
(D) draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels
--Wrong. Several conclusions can be drawn from any argument, doesn't make them wrong.
(E) fails to consider that percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin
--Irrelevant.

kutsch · Answer

For these types of questions I like to think of potential answers before looking at the answer choices.

One of the "flaws" I thought of was that there might be other reasons for the reduction in heart disease.

Answer choice (B) says pretty much that.

poojakhanduja3017 · Answer

IMO B

The only thing this question tests is our ability to move from general knowledge of the world and think from author's perspective. In general, we might know that Low cholesterol leads to low risk of heart disease, but here we have to negate the statement using correct logic.

Solution

First of all, we need to understand the argument. In Summary: Pravastatin is supposed to lead to 3 different things:
1) Low Cholestrol
2) Low risk of Heart Disease
3) Lesser Deaths

Now the conclusion is mentioned as 1 leads to 2 i.e lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease. 
 The answer can be to prove that 1 is mutually exclusive with 2 and/or 1 and 2 are both linked to Pravastatin

Options:

(A) neglects the possibility that pravastatin may have severe side effects :  Irrelevant. Even if thisdrug has side effects, it doesn't weaken that low cholesterol can lead to low heart disease

(B) fails to consider that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease but not as a consequence of its lowering cholesterol levels  Correct captures the solution mentioned above

(C) relies on past finding, rather than drawing its principal conclusion from the data found in the specific study cited   There is no discussion about past finding

(D) draws a conclusion regarding the effects of lowering cholesterol levels on heart disease, when in fact the conclusion should focus on the relation between pravastatin and cholesterol levels.   This statement in entirety is true, but it doesn't weaken the argument

(E) fails to consider that percentage of the general population might be taking pravastatin  However big or small population might be taking the drug, still low cholesterol can lead to low risk of heart disease.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kindly give Kudos if you find my answer helpful.

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

Wow. This one was tough. Took me 2:06. Maybe taking some notes would have helped...

Bambi2021 · Answer

I can't really agree with OA here. All the statins are aimed at lowering cholesterol levels. This is their sole purpose. The author knows this. There is no other way for pravastatin to reduce the risk of heart disease than by lowering cholesterol levels.

As a question maker you cant just ignore reality. Are the clouds covering the sun in any other way than simply being there?

As a question maker you cant just ignore reality. Are the clouds covering the sun in any other way than simply being there?

MBAB123 · Answer

The author does say that reducing cholesterol is  one of the effects  of pravastatin.

Fdambro294 · Answer

Yes, but we are asked to find the flaw in the logic of the argument: how the author takes the facts, uses those facts as support, and then makes her claim. We are just focused on this overall structure of the argument in question.

9 times out of 10, in these 'Pure' Find the Logical Flaw-Type questions, the 'flaw' made by the author is going to be related to an assumption.

The conclusion here is that lowering cholesterol leads to reduced heart issues.

Put all of your outside knowledge aside and just focus on the structure of the author's argument.

In the study, the author observes a correlation between two things: a drug that lower cholesterol is consumed by some people in a study ---- AND ----- there is a relative decrease in the heart problems these people experience.

Just because the drug lowers cholesterol, do we know for sure that this lowering is what lead to the decrease in heart problems? This is the causal flaw (and faulty assumption) made by the author in this argument.

Maybe in addition to lowering cholesterol, the drug has a positive effect on the arteries. Again, push aside everything you know about cholesterol in the real world. Maybe the "lower cholesterol effect" caused by this drug had absolutely nothing to do with the relative decrease in heart problems. Rather, it was the other effect of improved arteries that lead to the decline.

In this hypothetical case, it would be hard to make the general claim, based on the supporting evidence, that lowering cholesterol leads to fewer heart problems. You could make an argument (in such a case) that improving the arteries may lead to fewer heart problems. In the hypothetical case, the facts would provide some support for this claim.

I believe this is what makes the problem a bit on the harder side: you must remove any knowledge that you may have regarding cholesterol, focus strictly on what the author is "doing" in her argument, and find the logical flaw made.

GMAC most likely chooses these topics to play on our biases, hoping that we will fill in the gaps with outside knowledge.

Nowhere in the argument is there explicit proof that the "lower cholesterol" from the drug is what lead to a decline in heart problems for the people in the study. The author has only the observed correlation of a pill being consumed and fewer heart problems. Yes, the drug does lower cholesterol. But we are never told explicitly that it was the lower cholesterol that lead to the decline in heart issues for these people.

By ignoring the other alternative explanations/causations and making the faulty cause and effect assumption in the argument above, the author created a flawed argument.

EDIT: Answer is B.

generis · Answer

Bambi2021  , two things.

First, generally, it is not good strategy to argue with an official answer.
Your time will be better spent understanding why the official answer is correct.

Second, LSAT and GMAT writers can do anything they want when they write questions.
It would probably be better to approach these giant tests with the attitude that the writers know what they are doing.

The clouds might not be the only thing covering the sun.
Are clouds pollution?
An eclipse?
Maybe other things cover the sun.

I have yet to see an LR question that was at odds with reality; nonetheless, it is entirely possible that a question might be at odds with what you think you know or with what is generally established in the scientific community.

If you were to encounter such a question, you would accept the evidence and premises you were given.
Period.

This question plays on one of the oldest tricks in the CR or LR handbook: correlation does not equal causation.

As  Brian123  noted, the prompt does mention that one of the effects of pravastatin is that it lowers cholesterol.
The prompt gives a nod to part of what you assert.
But LSAT writers do not need to nod to anyone except their editors, who, I promise you, are more than capable.

With respect to the correct answer's logical underpinnings,  Fdambro294  noted, 
"Yes, the drug lowers cholesterol. But we are never told that it was the lower cholesterol that directly led to the decline in heart issues  ."

Do not confuse correlation with causation.

The first study results pertain to decreases in non-fatal heart attacks and in deaths from coronary disease.
The results of the first study  do not mention  reduced cholesterol.
 
Lowering cholesterol is only "one" of the effects of the drug pravastatin.
Other studies show that those who have heart disease "often" have higher than average cholesterol levels.
Those words in quotation marks are flags.

The utter absence of mention of cholesterol in the results of the first study and the emphasis a reader’s mind should put on the words I’ve put in quotation marks should lead the reader to be suspicious about a conclusion that makes any claims about cholesterol.

The conclusion in this question indeed makes such a claim.
Conclusion: This shows that lowering cholesterol levels reduces the risk of heart disease.

Think to yourself: that's nice. 
Where the heck do the  results  of the present study talk about the fact that lowered cholesterol was directly responsible for the lower rates of heart attack and death?

In any event, aspirants will likely have a more fruitful learning experience when they seek to understand an answer—especially when that question is official.

Bambi2021 · Answer

Brian123 ,  Fdambro294 ,  generis

Thanks guys for your decent replies. I understand this, but sometimes it's not easy to simply inactivate the real world knowledge that one got. It feels as if you are getting punished for having more knowledge than necessary about a subject.

The way the prompt is written, obviously there is a flaw in the reasoning when we are told that "lowering cholesterol" is only "one of the effects". Pravastatin affects the blood pressure in two ways: one is by lowering the cholesterol and the other is by lowering amounts of other lipids in the blood. So if we are to get even more subtle here, lowering the cholesterol IS only one of the effects. And I was wrong.

As you say, no need to argue. But (!) - always a need to claim my right to be frustrated.

Fdambro294 · Answer

Absolutely!

I have a few thrown laptops to attest to that truth..... lol

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A recent study of 6,403 people showed that those treated with the drug

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards