Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S2 · Q18 No one with a serious medical problem would rely

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

No one with a serious medical problem would rely on the average person to prescribe treatment.

Facts

No one with a bad medical issue would trust the average person to prescribe treatment. And since a good public servant has the interest of the public at heart ...

Evaluation

Huh? Whenever we see "similarly", we will usually be dealing with an analogy, and LSAT likes to make us Complete the Analogy. But here I think we need to do a little mental effort to figure out how these things will line up. In the first case, the author is saying, good public servantif we have a serious public interest problem, we should rely on a good public servant rather than the average person".

Goal

Hard to guess this one, but look for something safely worded that seems to complete an analogy between the medical problem case and the good public servant case.

18.

Which one of the following statements would most reasonably complete the argument?

  1. public servants should not be

    Out of Scope: "public opinion surveys"

    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".

    3% picked this

  2. the average public servant knows

    Weak Match

    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.

    11% picked this

  3. public servants should be more

    Out of Scope Comparison

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    public servants should base decisions

    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.

    71% picked this

  5. one is a good public

    Bad Match

    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.

    11% 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