Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q6 Asthmagon was long considered the

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Asthmagon was long considered the most effective of the drugs known as beta-2 agonists, designed to alleviate asthma attacks.

Conclusion (should)

Asthmagon should be banned as an anti-asthma drug.

Evidence

In Rhiago, between 1981-1987, one out of every five asthma patients under observation who took asthmagon suffered serious side effects after taking the drug.

Evaluate

Given that ... 20% of patients suffered serious side effects from this drug, How could we argue that ... this drug should not be banned?

Well, chemotherapy has serious side effects for almost all of its users (hair loss, nausea, neuropathy), but we don't ban it because the alternative is dying from cancer.

So maybe we could make a similar argument --- perhaps the serious side effects are worth it, given that the alternative could be even more serious asthma attacks?

Goal

Let's look for an answer that makes this Rhiago study sound like less compelling evidence of a ban, or look for an answer that gives us a way to argue that,

6.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the case for the proposed ban of asthmagon?

  1. In Rhiago, where asthmagon had

    Strengthens, if anything

    The fact that deaths from asthma are increasing in the same area where this drug is the most widely prescribed treatment makes it sound like this drug isn't particularly effective. If a drug isn't that effective and carries serious side effects for 1/5 of its users, that would strengthen the case for banning it. Had this answer said, "when we started using asthmagon as the most widely prescribed beta-2 agonists, the number of asthma deaths decreased", that would give us a way to argue, "sure, it has serious side effects, but we shouldn't ban it, since it's saving lives".

    2% picked this

  2. Many of the patients under

    No Impact

    We don't really care whether patients had / hadn't taken a beta-2 agonist prior to Asthmagon. If they had, then does that give us some common sense expectation about whether they would or wouldn't suffer serious side effects? If they hadn't? There's no common sense payoff to knowing they've had a drug "of this general type" before or that they've never had it. Finally, the word "many" only means like "at least 5", so it's not a very compelling or impactful idea no matter what.

    3% picked this

  3. Despite the growing concern about

    No Impact

    What people currently do or don't do with the drug is pretty irrelevant to whether it should / shouldn't be banned. We could try to use this answer to say, "Even though asthmagon produces serious side effects in 1/5 of its users, we shouldn't ban it because many doctors still prescribe it." But that's a very weak objection. Just because many (at least 5) doctors prescribe it doesn't mean we shouldn't ban it. Many people still say the N-word, but we can still say, "we should ban usage of the N-word".

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    Among the patients observed, only

    Why this is right

    This is a weird correct answer, but it gives us a pretty good way to argue the Anti-Conclusion, because it's revealing to us that the 1/5 of people who suffer serious side effects aren't some random sampling of the population. It was only those who had very high cholesterol counts that had severe side effects. Thus, we can argue, "Even though 1/5 of the users in the study had serious side effects, we shouldn't ban the drug, because we could just continue to use it but refrain from prescribing it to anyone who has very high cholesterol." You may remember when Viagra filled the airwaves with commercials, there was always a disclaimer at the end, "Do not take Viagra if you are currently taking nitrates for you heart". That's because during the clinical studies of Viagra, they found that patients taking nitrates for their heart (a very specific subpopulation) had serious side effects from Viagra. That doesn't stop it from becoming FDA-approved; it just means that nurses and doctors know that there is a potential complication in administering it that they need to be aware of.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    89% picked this

  5. Asthmagon increases the severity of

    Strengthens

    This just makes the side effects sound scarier, which works more in the direction of banning the drug than not banning it.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free