Discussion
In an effort to reduce underage drinking, the Department of Health has been encouraging adolescents to take a pledge not to drink alcohol until they reach the legal age. This seems to be successful. A survey of seventeen-year-olds has found that many who do not drink report having taken a pledge to refrain from drinking, whereas almost all who drink report having never taken such a pledge. The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism because the argument
*This question is included in June 2013 LSAT (PT69): Logical Reasoning A, question #24
| (A) | bases a conclusion about the efficacy of a method to reduce underage drinking merely on a normative judgment about the morality of underage drinking |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 11/04/2014 18:45
I wonder why answer E is not correct? Can anyone post an explanation?
Posted: 11/05/2014 11:45
Julian, the statement is lacking a causal explanation between one event (pledge) and another (refraining from drinking). Argument C has that.
Argument E reverses the order of events, but still does not state the lack of causal link.
Argument E reverses the order of events, but still does not state the lack of causal link.