Sample LSAT Question (Logical Reasoning)

Question

Stimulus:

Some critics argue that advertising unhealthy snack foods during children’s television programming encourages poor eating habits. In response, the Snack Foods Association claims that advertising alone cannot shape long-term behavior, since most children exposed to such ads are taught healthy eating habits at home and in school.

Question:

The reasoning in the Snack Foods Association’s response is flawed because it:

A) fails to consider that parents may also buy unhealthy snacks due to advertising

B) confuses correlation with causation

C) assumes that messages from home and school always override other influences

D) attacks the critics’ character rather than their argument

E) presumes that children watch only one type of television programming

Answer 1

Correct Answer: C

How I approach this question as a tutor:

When working with LSAT students, I teach them to focus first on the structure of the argument, not the content. In this case, the critics are making a causal claim: that advertising unhealthy food contributes to poor eating habits. The Snack Foods Association responds by saying, essentially, “That can't be true, because kids also learn healthy habits at home and school.”

This is a classic flawed rebuttal — it doesn’t disprove the original point, but instead assumes that home and school influence outweighs or cancels out the effect of advertising.

Let’s walk through the answer choices:

1. A: Brings in parents' buying behavior — irrelevant to the reasoning. Eliminate.
2. B: There's no confusion between correlation and causation here — the argument addresses causation head-on. Eliminate.
3. C: Yes — this nails the flaw. The response assumes that positive influences at home/school override any influence advertising might have, but provides no support for that.
4. D: There’s no personal attack — eliminate.
5. E: Makes an unwarranted assumption not made in the argument. Eliminate.

Conclusion:

I coach my LSAT students to spot this type of flawed reasoning by learning to identify unwarranted assumptions. I also teach them how to eliminate wrong answer choices efficiently and recognize common distractor types, like those that bring in irrelevant facts or misstate the argument’s logic.