Top Law Schools

In this question, Am I correctly pointing out another flaw:
just because there is no evidence that coffee can harm, coffee is considered harmless

Thanks,
Krishna

This is basically saying that there is no indication that coffee is harmful to the heart, so go ahead and drink coffee! The flaw is that he takes for granted what is true about a part (healthy for the heart) as to be true as a whole (healthy for the whole body). What if coffee is harmful to the liver, brain, certain cells, etc.? Fwiw, when I went through this problem the first time I got it wrong, too. FFR, Manhattan Prep has forums which explain each LR question

Yes , the one you mentioned is a flaw and it is the answer. I wanted to see if there is additional flaw, if the flaw I mentioned in my post exists.

kkilambi wrote:In this question, Am I correctly pointing out another flaw:
just because there is no evidence that coffee can harm, coffee is considered harmless

Thanks,
Krishna

Yes, you are correct. To be a bit more specific, there is no evidence based on these studies that drinking coffee in normal amounts is harmful. So it's possible that these studies were flawed, though in LSAT flaw questions, it's almost never the case that a premise is simply incorrect. The conclusion also makes the mistake of generalizing that coffee is safe to drink based on the idea that drinking normal amounts of coffee causes no harm to the heart. What about drinking excess amounts of coffee?