Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S1 · Q23 In scientific journals, authors and reviewers

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

In scientific journals, authors and reviewers have praised companies in which they have substantial investments.

Conclusion (so / should)

There should be full public disclosure of scientific author’s financial holdings.

Evidence

Sometimes author and reviewers in sci journals will praise companies that they’ve invested in, raising fears of conflict of interest and calling into question the integrity of scientific inquiry.

Evaluation

For almost all Principle questions, we’re prephrasing an If/Then or “Should rule-of-thumb” that gets us from premise to conclusion. Here it could sound something like, .

Goal

Since the answers will venture to new topics, we’re mainly looking for something that reiterates the idea of, .

23.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated by the argument above?

  1. Managers within any corporation should

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    This helps you conclude that someone shouldn’t make investments, whereas we want to match a conclusion that is saying you can make investments but you should disclose them. Also, investing in your own company is pretty different from “endorsing a different company that you happen to have investments in”.

    2% picked this

  2. Claims about the effectiveness of

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    We need to match a rule about whether or not scientists should disclose their investments. This is a rule about who should assess something’s effectiveness. Beware the Topic Trap of still talking about scientists.

    2% picked this

  3. People with access to otherwise

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    We need to match a rule about whether or not scientists should disclose their investments. This rule says you should not be allowed to buy or sell a certain investment. Also, “having access to otherwise private info” is a poor match for “praising a company you’ve invested in”.

    6% picked this

  4. Magazine publishers should not be

    Bad Conclusion Match / Weak Premise Match

    This helps you conclude that someone shouldn’t be allowed to make an investment, whereas we want to match a conclusion that is saying you can make investments but you should disclose them.

    9% picked this

  5. Correct

    Financial advisers should inform their

    Why this is right

    “Praising companies in which they have investments” matches up with “promoting companies that you’re incentivized to promote”, and “should inform clients” matches up with “should publicly disclose commercial holdings”.

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

    81% 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