LSAT Question Explanation
PT 117, Section 4, Question 6
Identify the RoleArgument structure
To lower cholesterol levels, one might need to make dramatic dietary changes.
Doctors urge people to make dietary changes to reduce their cholesterol, but moderate dietary changes often don't work.
Explanation
In this argument the author introduces the idea that cholesterol levels can be lowered through dietary changes, and then says that moderate changes often don't work. So the author concludes that you may need more dramatic dietary changes.
The claim in the question stem is the second sentence, which tells us that the moderate changes may not work. This is a premise that supports the conclusion that one might need to make dramatic changes. So I'm looking for an answer choice that says the claim is evidence that one may need dramatic changes to lower their cholesterol.
Answer choices
The author isn't using the claim in the question stem to say that the doctors are wrong, just that in some cases people may need to make dramatic dietary changes. The doctors never said that you don't need dramatic changes, or that you only need moderate changes, so there is no "countering" going on here.
This answer choice indicates that the statement in question is evidence, but then presents the wrong conclusion. The vegetarian diet was just an example of a dramatic change, the author wasn't arguing that it's healthier than eating meat. The conclusion given here doesn't match the conclusion of the stimulus.
This is correct because it indicates that the claim in question is a premise acting as evidence for the proper conclusion.
This again gets the main point of the argument wrong saying that the author was explaining the success of vegetarian diets in reducing cholesterol? That never happened in the stimulus.
This indicates that the claim in the question is the conclusion of the argument, which is inaccurate. The claim is evidence for the conclusion that one may need dramatic dietary changes to reduce cholesterol.