Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT106 S1 Q25 Explanation

McKinley: A double-blind study,

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

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

McKinley: A double-blind study, in which neither the patient nor the primary researcher knows whether the patient is being given the drug being tested or a placebo, is the most effective procedure for testing the efficacy of a drug. But we will not be able to perform such a study on this aware of whether the patients are getting the drug or a placebo.

Engle: You cannot draw that conclusion at this point, for you are assuming you know what the study will be.

What this question is testing

Flaw

McKinley's Argument

McKinley says: we can't do a double-blind test on this drug because the drug's effects on patients will give it away.

Engle's Pushback

Engle replies: hold on, you're jumping ahead — you're assuming you already know what the study would show.

Evaluate

Why would Engle say that? Only if Engle thinks McKinley is talking about effects that haven't been confirmed yet — i.e., the drug's therapeutic effects, the very thing the study is designed to test. If McKinley meant already-known side effects, Engle's "you're assuming the outcome" complaint wouldn't apply, because side effects you already know about don't require running the study to discover.

So Engle is reading McKinley as saying Engle thinks that's premature — we don't know yet whether or how the drug will work.

Goal

Find the answer that says: Engle takes McKinley to be referring to therapeutic effects rather than known side effects.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
25.

Engle’s statement indicates that he is most likely interpreting McKinley’s remarks

Answer choices

  1. Bad Description3% picked this

    Presuming that a double-blind study is the only effective way to

    Engle does not accuse McKinley of treating double-blind studies as the only effective testing method. McKinley described it as "the most effective procedure," not the only one — and Engle's critique is about assuming the outcome, not about ranking procedures.

  2. Bad Description5% picked this

    Denying that the drug will be

    Engle does not accuse McKinley of denying the drug's effectiveness. Engle is doing the opposite — Engle is saying McKinley is presupposing the drug will have effects. Denying effectiveness is the wrong direction.

  3. Bad Description46% picked this

    Presuming that the placebo will produce no effects whatsoever on the

    Engle says nothing about the placebo. His critique is about McKinley's assumption regarding the drug's effects, not about whether placebos do or don't produce their own effects on the body. This answer brings in a topic Engle doesn't address.

  4. Correct35% picked this

    Referring to the drug’s therapeutic effects rather than to any known

    Why this is right

    This is Engle's read. McKinley said the drug will have "various effects on the patients' bodies." Engle accuses McKinley of "assuming you know what the outcome of the study will be" — but that critique only lands if Engle is interpreting "effects" as the therapeutic effects (what the study is designed to test) rather than already-known side effects. Side effects already established in pre-trial work would not be an assumption about the outcome. So Engle must be reading McKinley as referring to the drug's therapeutic effects.

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

  5. Bad Description12% picked this

    Based on a confusion about when a drug

    Engle does not accuse McKinley of confusion about when a drug is efficacious. Engle's critique is about assuming the outcome of the study — about presupposing how the drug will behave. The timing or definition of "efficacious" is not what Engle is targeting.

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