Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT129 S2 Q18 Explanation

No one with a serious medical problem would rely

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

TopicsMost Supported

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

No one with a serious medical problem would rely on the average person to prescribe treatment. Similarly, since a good public servant has public at heart, _______.

What this question is testing

Most Supported

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
18.

Which one of the following statements would most reasonably complete

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: "public opinion surveys"3% picked this

    public servants should not be concerned about the outcomes of public

    This answer makes it seem like the intended analogy was "Just as people with medical problems should ignore average people's opinions, public servants should ignore average people's opinions".

  2. Weak Match11% picked this

    the average public servant knows more about what is best for society than the

    Maybe we could match this to the first case, if we think that good public servant is meant to line up with doctor (the person with expertise). Was the first half of the analogy saying that "the average doctor knows more about what's best for a patient than the average person does"? It was insinuating that, but it didn't say it, so it would be weird if the "similarly" claim was structured completely differently.

  3. Out of Scope Comparison5% picked this

    public servants should be more knowledgeable about the public good than

    Out of Scope Comparison: "more knowledgeable than they are" This doesn't match up with anything in the first example. We didn't say doctors or average people or people with medical problems should be more informed than they are.

  4. Correct71% picked this

    public servants should base decisions on something other than the average

    Why this is right

    Can we match this up with the first example? Yes, if we assign "good public servant" to the same role as "someone with a serious medical problem". Both of them have problems to solve, either public policy or medical treatment diagnosis. Both of them should avoid getting their solutions from the average person.

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

  5. Bad Match11% picked this

    one is a good public servant if one is more knowledgeable about the public good than

    This provides a sufficient condition for good public servant. In the first example, did we have a sufficient condition for being a doctor / someone with a serious medical problem? No, so there's no way that this will line up.

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