An antidote for chicken pox has been developed, but researchers warn that its widespread use could be dangerous, despite the fact that this drug has no serious side effects and is currently very effective at limiting the duration and severity of chicken pox.Which one of the following, if true, helps most to reconcile the apparent discrepancy indicated above?
Answer(s): E
"Apparent discrepancy" is LSAT lingo for Paradox, so let's find the mystery and then the choice that best solves it. An antidote for chicken pox that works quite well against the disease and has no serious side effects is found nonetheless to be potentially dangerous if used widely. The mystery, in a nutshell, then, is why the researcher warning if the drug seems safe on these counts? Hopefully you sensed that this one had "alternative possibility" written all over it. A valid resolution will probably suggest that there's some other danger inherent in the antidote, and that's what we should be on the lookout for. This prephrase is more than enough to fire right through options [The drug is extremely expensive and...], [The drug has to be administered...], [The drug does not prevent the spread of...], as we'll discuss below, but things get a bit trickier on the southern side of the choices, considering that both options [When misused by...] and [Use of the drug contributes to...] seem to introduce dangers of the antidote.How to choose between them? Option [When misused by...] looks good at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals a scope shift: The researcher warning was in relation to widespread use, not misuse of the antidote.Technically, any misused drug can be dangerous, especially when the misuse involves taking too much; overdose is always a possibility. So option [When misused by...] really doesn't explain why researchers feel that widespread use of the drug can be dangerous, since nothing in the argument suggests that it will be misused in this way. Option [Use of the drug contributes to...], on the other hand, squarely addresses the right issue: It basically says that using the drug will bring on a worse disease for which the drug is ineffective. If option [Use of the drug contributes to...] is true, then it's far easier to understand the researchers' warning despite the drug's seeming advantages.
The tendency toward overspecialization in the study of artifacts is unfortunate. Scholars can enhance their understanding of a certain artistic period by studying art from earlier periods that had a significant influence on it. For instance, because of its influence on Spanish artisans, a proper understanding of Arabic porcelain is indispensable for a proper understanding of Spanish porcelain.Of the following, which one most closely conforms to the principle that the passage as a whole illustrates?
The stem tells us that the entire stimulus represents a principle, and that we're to find the choice that involves a situation that behaves according to that principle. So the first step, naturally, is to extract the principle from the passage. The author is against the overspecialization in the study of artifacts, but that doesn't mean all that much to us until it's fleshed out with an alternative and an example. To understand a specific artistic period, the author claims that it helps to study previous art that influenced the period in question. The example further clarifies her position: Since Arabic porcelain influenced Spanish artisans, studying the previous Arabic stuff is crucial to understanding Spanish porcelain. So to paraphrase this in general terms, let's simply say that understanding a certain thing is important to understanding a later thing derived from it.
Editorial: Medical schools spend one hour teaching preventive medicine for every ten hours spent teaching curative medicine, even though doctors' use of the techniques of preventive medicine cuts down medical costs greatly. Therefore, if their goal is to make medicine more cost-effective, medical schools spend insufficient time teaching preventive medicine.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?
When we see an Assumption question, we think "there's something missing, and it's required for this argument to work. "Let's look for a gap between the evidence and conclusion. In medical school, learning how to cure medical problems outweighs learning how to prevent them 10 to 1, even though preventive medicine cuts down on medical costs. The editorial concludes that if the schools are interested in making medicine more cost- effective, then they're not spending enough time on preventive medicine. But even though time spent teaching curative medicine outweighs preventive 10 to 1, where does the editorial establish that this ratio is not sufficient to adequately teach preventive medicine? It doesn't. Sure, the 10 to 1 ratio sounds disproportionate, but maybe the subject of preventive medicine can be taught just fine in the time currently allotted. If so, then the editorialist would be wrong to argue that cost-conscious medical schools spend insufficient time teaching preventive medicine. E. must therefore be assumed: In a fairly long-winded manner, all it says is that the 10 to 1 ratio is not sufficient to teach preventive medicine well. If it was sufficient (the Denial Test), then the argument would make no sense.
Dana: It is wrong to think that the same educational methods should be used with all children. Many children have been raised in more communal environments than others and would therefore learn better through group, rather than individual, activities. A child's accustomed style of learning should always dictate what method is used. Pat: No, not always. The flexibility of being able to work either on one's own or in a group is invaluable in a world where both skills are in demand.The conversation lends the most support to the claim that Dana and Pat disagree on which one of the following?
Answer(s): B
Next up is a Point-At-Issue question, so understanding (and sticking to!) to the scope is all-important. Dana's point comes through loud and clear in her first sentence: The idea that educational methods should be uniform for all children is wrong. According to her, what a child is used to should determine how the child is taught, and the example given is that children raised in group environments would benefit more from group, as opposed to individual, instruction. Pat disagrees immediately, asserting that the skills picked up from both individual and group instruction are crucial in the real world. So essentially he takes issue with the word "always" in Dana's argument; he thinks, for practical purposes, learning should not always be geared to methods to which children are most accustomed. Option [All children should learn to...] gets at the heart of this conflict. Pat would agree that children should learn to adapt to different teaching methods; that's right in line with his notion of "flexibility" that's "invaluable" out there in the real world. Dana would see option [All children should learn to...] and say "phooey! -- children shouldn't have to adapt; they should be taught however they're most comfortable.
Experimental psychology requires the application of statistics to interpret empirical data and assess their significance. A person will not be able to understand such applications without training in statistics. Therefore, the more training one has in statistics, the better one will be at research in experimental psychology.Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?
Answer(s): A
Here's the first, and only pure Parallel Reasoning question of the section -- although, as mentioned above, has a definite Parallel Reasoning feel to it. Mimic the flaw is our task, and let's see, as always, if isolating the conclusion can be of any help. And it's not hard to find, signaled by the trusty Keyword "Therefore..." Paraphrased in general terms (which is how we always want to treat the conclusion in Parallel Reasoning questions), the last sentence says that the more of a certain thing you have, the better you'll be at something else. Options [Most people need the love and support of...] and [Since in most jobs there are annual wage or...] are passable on this front, including as they do a "more X, more Y" style of reasoning, but the rest don't conform at all: option [The main cause of heart attacks is arteriosclerosis...] is element of likelihood has no counterpart in the original. Option [Since many disease processes are biochemical in...] is "no training" doesn't match "more training" in the stimulus, and this option is conclusion about what will not happen is also out of place. Option [Since most disease processes are biochemical in nature, an understanding...] is conclusion, meanwhile, deals with what's required to do something, which also doesn't conform to the passage conclusion's "more/better" structure.But there is a "requirement" element in the evidence, and that helps us to differentiate between the right answer and the fourth loser. The most glaring element of the first sentence is that one thing requires another, and comparing options [Most people need the love and support of...] and [Since in most jobs there are annual wage or...]., only the first contains this element -- people need love and support. The second describes a typical consequence of an activity(working), but that's not the same thing. Options [Most people need the love and support of...] is the only choice that mimics the two main elements of the passage: the "more/better" structure of the conclusion, and the notion of necessity in the evidence.
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.