Akela wrote:
Many nursing homes have prohibitions against having pets, and these should be lifted. The presence of an animal companion can yield health benefits by reducing a person’s stress. A pet can also make one’s time at a home more rewarding, which will be important to more people as the average life span of our population increases.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn in the argument above?
(A) As the average life span increases, it will be important to more people that life in nursing homes be rewarding.
(B) Residents of nursing homes should enjoy the same rewarding aspects of life as anyone else.
(C) The policy that many nursing homes have should be changed so that residents are allowed to have pets.
(D) Having a pet can reduce one’s stress and thereby make one a healthier person.
(E) The benefits older people derive from having pets need to be recognized, especially as the average life span increases.
LSAT
Let's break down our passage:
1. Prohibitions against pets in nursing homes should be lifted (because of):
a. presence of animal companions --> less stress
b. have a pet --> time at home more rewarding (important due to lifespan increase)
We're asked about the conclusion of the argument. As the chain of logic presented is very clear, we'll first go the Precise route of inferring a likely answer. In this case, our answer choice will likely talk about how pets improve life quality in various ways and therefore the prohibitions against them in nursing homes should be lifted. This is exactly what (C) tells us and it is therefore our answer. Note that even though some of the other answer choices mention the right keywords ('pets', 'stress', 'lifespan') none put them together in the right order and scope.
(C) is our answer.