Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S3 · Q12 Some people claim that 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

Some people claim that the reason herbs are not prescribed as drugs by licensed physicians is that the medical effectiveness of herbs is seriously in doubt.

Opposing View

Some claim herbs aren't prescribed because their medicinal effectiveness is seriously in doubt.

Author's Alternative Explanation

Herbs aren't prescribed because of a structural barrier: drugs require regulatory approval ($200M cost), only patent-holders can recover those costs, and herbs and their medicinal uses can't be patented. So the system financially can't support seeking approval for herbs.

Conclusion

Under the current system, licensed physicians cannot recommend the medicinal use of herbs.

Evaluate

The author's technique: the opposing view says herbs aren't prescribed because they don't work. The author counters by offering a totally different explanation — herbs aren't prescribed because of a regulatory/economic structure, not because of efficacy. That's a competing explanation for the same phenomenon.

Goal

Identify the move: questioning a claim about why something is the case by supplying an alternative explanation.

12.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the argumentative technique used in the argument?

  1. Correct

    questioning a claim about why

    Why this is right

    This nails the technique. The original claim is about why physicians don't prescribe herbs (because effectiveness is in doubt). The author challenges that claim not by attacking it directly, but by supplying an alternative explanation: the real cause is the patent-and-approval-cost structure, not doubts about effectiveness. Same phenomenon, different cause — exactly what (A) describes.

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

    78% picked this

  2. attacking the validity of the

    Bad Description

    The author doesn't attack any data. The opposing view didn't cite data — only a claim about doctors' motivations. The author engages by offering a different explanation, not by criticizing evidence.

    1% picked this

  3. revealing an inconsistency in the

    Bad Description

    The author doesn't reveal any inconsistency in the opposing view's reasoning. The author simply offers a different explanation. There's no claim that the opposing view contradicts itself or follows from incompatible premises.

    7% picked this

  4. identifying all plausible explanations for

    Bad Description

    The author doesn't identify all plausible explanations and eliminate all but one. The author simply offers one alternative explanation in opposition to the original. No comprehensive enumeration or systematic elimination is performed.

    9% picked this

  5. testing a theory by determining

    Bad Description

    The author doesn't test any theory by checking whether a situation matches its predictions. The author offers an explanation for why herbs aren't prescribed; there's no theory whose predictions are being checked against observed reality.

    5% 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