Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S2 · Q10 Air traffic controllers and nuclear

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

Air traffic controllers and nuclear power plant operators are not allowed to work exceptionally long hours, because to do so would jeopardize lives.

Conclusion (should)

Resident physicians should also be restricted from working exceptionally long hours (like 80 hour weeks).

Evidence (since)

Air traffic controllers and nuclear power plant operators are restricted from exceptionally long hours, because working exceptionally long hours would jeopardize lives.

Resident physicians, just like the air traffic controllers and nuclear plant operators, are engaged in work of a life-or-death nature.

Evaluate

Since this argument is based on a Comparison, we want to think about what similarities are being assumed or about what potential differences could be currently overlooked.

The author is Assuming a Similarity when it comes to the effect of long hours in residency training. We ban long hours for air traffic control and nuclear plants because to do so would jeopardize lives.

Did the author ever establish that long hours in resident training would also jeopardize lives? Not quite. They just said that physicians in residency are also engaged in work of a life-or-death nature.

The one big difference that might matter here is that physicians in residency are training, whereas air traffic controllers and nuclear plant operators presumably are not. Maybe we need to ban long hours for people who are "in charge" of doing the work, but we don't need to ban long hours for people who are just "in training"?

(I think in reality physicians in residency training are still making medical decisions, not just shadowing an established doctor is doing the real decision work, but LSAC wouldn't expect me to know that, so the "in training" vs. "not in training" might still be something they test).

Goal

Look for something establishing that or maybe making a linking assumption that . Or look for any answer that, if negated, would weaken the argument (i.e., would allow to argue that the restrictions on exceptionally long hours should not be applied to resident physicians).

10.

Which one of the following is an assumption the argument depends on?

Correct
There is no indispensable aspect
Why this is right
Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and see an answer that's ruling out something using "not / no", we want to slow down and give it a look, since so many correct answers on NA are written in that form. If we negate this, does it weaken? There is some indispensable aspect of residency training that requires resident physicians to work exceptionally long hours. Heck yeah, that weakens! That essentially tells the conclusion to go take a hike. We shouldn't put hour restrictions on resident physicians if there is some indispensable aspect that requires the long hours. This answer almost seems too easy. It's basically saying the author is assuming that, "There is not something that would make the idea in the conclusion impossible." But it certainly qualifies as, "if negated, it badly weakens the argument". (note: we don't need to know this to get the question right, but my guess is that resident physicians need to work really long hours because they need to see incoming patients' situations evolve over the course of many hours or days. If they started a treatment protocol with a patient but then left after an 8 hours shift, they might not be around later to see whether / how the treatment was helping, so they would be missing out on the educational value of seeing how their decision panned out. Also, when doctors and nurses switch shifts, they have to communicate a lot of stuff to the next shift. So it may just be more practical to work really long shifts, taking naps at work as needed, so that there doesn't need to be as much debriefing of the new shift)
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
Resident physicians have a more
Too Strong: more direct
In this argument by Comparison, the author needs to assume similarities between residency physicians and air traffic controllers / nuclear plant operators. The author is thinking that resident physicians have a comparable effect on the lives of others (in terms of risking the lives of others if they're burned out from working too many hours). But the author doesn't need to assume they have more direct effect. The argument would work just as well if they had comparably direct effect.
10% picked this
The more hours one works
Too Strong
Too Strong: the more x, the more y This answer is very tempting, since the author is definitely assuming that "at some point, the quality of work suffers when you work long hours". But the Volume Dial phrasing of this answer goes way overboard. According to this answer, the author believes that during the 3rd hour of work you have in a week, you're doing less satisfactory work than you were during the 1st and 2nd hour. Monday from 11am - noon is worse than 10-11am and 9-10am? That's way too strong. The author isn't committed to believing that. She's just committed to the idea that at some point the exceptionally long hours cause your work to suffer.
25% picked this
Those who are not engaged
Negated Logic
This is a classic Illegal Light switch type trap answer. If a Necessary Assumption argument says that "tall children love their moms", there will be a trap answer accusing the author of thinking that "short children don't love their moms". The author's reasoning move is essentially this: If you are also engaged in → should not work work of life-or-death nature crazy long hours And this answer just negates both sides to get: if you're not engaged → you can sometimes in life-or-death work work crazy long hours
4% picked this
Some resident physicians would like
Out of Scope: would like
Nothing in the argument is concerned with what resident physicians would or wouldn't like to do. It's about what restrictions should or shouldn't be placed on their work.
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