Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S1 Q23 Explanation

In scientific journals, authors and reviewers

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

TopicsPrinciple-Conform

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

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

In scientific journals, authors and reviewers have praised companies in which they have substantial investments. These scientists, with their potential conflict of interest, call into question the integrity of scientific inquiry, disclosure of scientific authors' commercial holdings.

What this question is testing

Principle-Conform

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.

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

Answer choices

  1. Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match2% picked this

    Managers within any corporation should not make investments in the companies for

    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. Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match3% picked this

    Claims about the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals should be based on

    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.

  3. Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match7% picked this

    People with access to otherwise private information regarding the value of stocks should not be allowed to sell

    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”.

  4. Bad Conclusion Match / Weak Premise Match10% picked this

    Magazine publishers should not be allowed to invest in the companies that advertise

    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.

  5. Correct78% picked this

    Financial advisers should inform their clients about any incentives the advisers receive for promoting investments

    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.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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