For the last three years, entomologists have been searching for a parasite to help control a whitefly that has recently become a serious crop pest. Believing this new pest to be a variety of sweet-potato whitefly, the entomologists confined their search to parasites of the sweet-potato whitefly. Genetic research now shows the new pest to be a distinct species, the silver leaf whitefly. Therefore, the search for a parasite has so far been wasted effort.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
Answer(s): D
The conclusion, signaled by "therefore" in the final sentence, is that the search for a parasite has been a wasted effort. Entomologists were searching for a parasite to the sweet-potato whitefly, believing that species to be a serious crop pest, but the culprit turned out to be the silver leaf whitefly instead. It is because of this error that the author concludes that the search has so far been a waste. Perhaps you were able to prephrase an alternative to this scenario: What if a parasite that would control the sweet-potato fly would also be effective against the silver leaf? Then it would be a bit rash to say that the effort thus far has been totally in vain, no? In order for the conclusion to stand, therefore, it must be assumed that no sweet-potato whitefly parasite is also a parasite of the silver leaf whitefly. If there is a parasite common to both the denial of option [No parasite of the sweet-potato whitefly is] -- then arguing that the search has been a total waste would be premature since it's possible they'd be able to use what they found against the silver leaf species anyway.
Announcement for a television program: Are female physicians more sensitive than male physicians to the needs of women patients? To get the answer, we'll ask physicians of both sexes this question. Tune in tomorrow.Which one of the following, if true, identifies a flaw in the plan for the program?
Answer(s): C
The question stem identifies this as a Flaw question -- we need to find out where the argument goes wrong.The TV program is looking to determine who female patients think are more sensitive to their needs: female physicians or male physicians. To answer this, they are going to poll the doctors. Did you recognize the fairly blatant scope shift contained in this reasoning? If you want to know the opinion of the female patients, you have to ask the female patients, not the doctors!
Doctor: The practice of using this therapy to treat the illness cannot be adequately supported by the claim that any therapy for treating the illness is more effective than no therapy at all. What must also be taken into account is that this therapy is expensive and complicated.Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the doctor's argument?
Answer(s): E
This argument requires careful paraphrasing. "Don't use this therapy merely because doing something is better than doing nothing. Also consider that the therapy is expensive and complicated." In other words, the possible benefit of the therapy must be weighed against the fact that it's costly and complicated. Note the similarities between the wording of the stimulus and the correct answer choice: "...cannot be adequately supported..." in the stimulus is perfectly in line with the answer option's "...is not sufficient justification..."
Television executives recently announced that advertising time on television will cost 10 to 15 percent more next fall than it cost last fall. The executives argued that in spite of this increase, advertisers will continue to profit from television advertising, and so advertising time will be no harder to sell next fall than it was last fall.Which one of the following, if true, would most support the television executives' argument?
TV and doctors, TV and doctors. . . Noticing a pattern in the subject matter in the beginning of this section? This time we get a strengthening question. We're told that advertising will be more expensive next year, but advertisers will still profit from those ads. The conclusion, set off in the final sentence by "and so," is that advertising time will be no harder to sell next fall than it was last fall. Perhaps this struck you as a bit shaky?The author doesn't say profits are rising, or even staying the same, but merely that profits will continue. If it's more expensive to advertise, might it not actually be harder to sell ads this fall? The author is assuming that despite increasing costs of TV advertising, something else will compensate for the increase and render the advertising just as valuable to advertisers despite the increase in cost. So we need to find some positive factor among the choices that would make us more likely to believe that ads will sell just as easily this fall, as the author contends. That may be as much of a prephrase as is possible here, so let's jump right to the choices.
It is proposed to allow the sale, without prescription, of a medication that physicians currently prescribe to treat the common ear inflammation called "swimmer's ear." The principal objection is that most people lack the expertise for proper self-diagnosis and might not seek medical help for more serious conditions in the mistaken belief that they have swimmer's ear. Yet in a recent study, of 1,000 people who suspected that they had swimmer's ear, 84 percent had made a correct diagnosis --- a slightly better accuracy rate than physicians have in diagnosing swimmer's ear. Thus, clearly, most people can diagnose swimmer's ear in themselves without ever having to consult a physician.Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion?
In this Weaken the Argument question, the argument is not about whether or not medicine to treat "swimmer's ear" should be sold. Instead, the conclusion is that most people can clearly diagnose swimmer's ear in themselves better than physicians can. The evidence is the study: Of the 1000 people sampled, 84 percent made a correct diagnosis, a rate higher than the correct diagnosis rate by physicians. Since the conclusion is reached on the basis of the study, we know to weaken the argument means to question the study itself. The correct answer will make it more likely that the sample does not accurately represent all people who suspect they have swimmer's ear. Option [Most of the people who diagnosed themselves...] does this -- most of the people were able to recognize the signs of "swimmer's ear" because they had already consulted a physician about it. If that's true, we'd be far less likely to believe that the study results support the conclusion that most people can diagnose the condition without consulting a doctor.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the LSAT Test content, but please register or login to continue.