Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT116 S2 Q23 Explanation

Toxicologist: Recent research has shown

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

TopicsRole

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

Toxicologist: Recent research has shown that dioxin causes cancer in rats. Although similar research has never been done on humans, and probably never will dioxin should be completely banned.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
23.

That dioxin causes cancer in rats figures in the argument in which one of

Answer choices

  1. Unclear Match7% picked this

    It is presented as the hazard that the researcher is concerned

    We don't specifically what hazard the researcher is trying to prevent by banning dioxin. The hazard in the first sentence is "rats getting cancer". It seems more common sensical to think that the author wants to ban dioxin to prevent the hazard it might cause to humans.

  2. Out of Scope: benefit1% picked this

    It is presented as a benefit of not acting on the recommendation

    Hahaha. This answer is saying that the author's conclusion is recommending that we ban dioxin, but "if we don't ban dioxin (if we don't act on that recommendation), then the one benefit of still using dioxin is that rats would get cancer." That's dark, (B). We definitely can't infer that the author was saying that cancerous rats was a benefit.

  3. Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

    It is presented as evidence for the claim that similar research will never be

    The first sentence is presented as evidence for the claim that "the use of dioxin should be completely banned".

  4. Correct87% picked this

    It is presented as a finding that motivates the course of action advocated

    Why this is right

    The finding from recent research that dioxin causes cancer in rats motivates the course of action of "completely banning the use of dioxin". In other words, "It is presented as a premise that supports the course of action recommended in the conclusion".

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

  5. Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

    It is presented as evidence for the claim that similar research has never been

    The first sentence is presented as evidence for the claim that "the use of dioxin should be completely banned".

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