Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S1 · Q10 The consequences of surgical errors

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

The consequences of surgical errors can be devastating, and no one would want to risk surgery unless it was performed by someone highly competent to perform surgery.

Conclusion (therefore)

Surgery at the hands of anyone other than a general surgeon involves highly undesirable risks.

Evidence

General surgeons have special training and expertise that make them extremely competent to perform surgery.

It would be an undesirable risk to have surgery performed by someone who wasn't highly competent.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Flaw and we see conditional logic, we assume that we're probably headed towards a Necessary vs. Sufficient error, and that is indeed what happens here.

The author has established in the evidence

If person performing surgery isn't highly competent, then it's an undesirable risk.

The author's conclusion is saying

If it's not a general surgeon, then it's an undesirable risk.

So the author is evidently assuming

If the person performing the surgery isn't a general surgeon, then they won't be highly competent (and thus it's an undesirable risk).

Did the evidence establish that ? No, it established that .

The author is trying to use a conditional relationship in an illegal backwards / opposite manner. Thus, she's committing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw.

Goal

Since this question stem is phrased like a Flaw-Weaken hybrid (vulnerable to criticism because it fails to consider), we're not liking to hear the formal description of that flaw.

It's more likely going to just be the conversational objection ...

10.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument fails to consider the possibility that

  1. there are general surgeons who

    Didn't Fail to Consider

    We're looking for the objection of "there are non - general surgeons who are competent". This is giving us the inverted version of that. Would it weaken the argument if there are general surgeons who are incompetent? Sure. But did the author fail to consider that? No, she considered it. She explicitly ruled out that possibility when she told us that "general surgeons have training and expertise that make them extremely competent."

    8% picked this

  2. Correct

    general surgeons are not the

    Why this is right

    This answer is pretty lame in the sense that the logical idea that matters in this argument is "highly competent", not just "competent". But it's the best answer we have that comes close to our objection: why are you assuming that general surgeons are the only people who are highly competent to perform surgery. Couldn't there be others who are also highly competent?

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

    75% picked this

  3. the competence of the doctor

    Not an Objection

    Our author was never saying or assuming that having a competent surgeon would guarantee a successful outcome, so we can't hurt her logic by saying that sometimes competent surgeons are unsuccessful. The argument was simply about whether you're talking about tolerable risk (having a highly competent person perform the surgery) vs. intolerable / undesirable risk (having someone who isn't highly competent perform the surgery). All surgeries carry some risk of bad outcomes.

    14% picked this

  4. risk is not the only

    Not an Objection

    The conclusion isn't about whether or not you should have surgery, so adding up all the pros and cons of factors why you should or shouldn't are irrelevant. This conclusion is only about the idea of, "If you're going to have surgery, it would be a highly undesirable risk if you went with someone other than a general surgeon." The author isn't saying, "If you can get a general surgeon, then you should have surgery."

    2% picked this

  5. factors in addition to competence

    Not an Objection

    The conclusion isn't saying you should choose a general surgeon. It only says that "were you to choose someone besides a general surgeon, it would involve highly undesirable risk". This answer is saying, "That risk might be outweighed by other stuff" and the author is free to agree. It doesn't hurt her argument to agree. To hurt her argument, we need to be able to argue that, "were we to choose someone besides a general surgeon, it would not necessarily involve highly undesirable risk! (after all, other people besides general surgeons are highly competent)

    2% 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