Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S3 · Q15 Medical ethicist: Assuming

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

Medical ethicist: Assuming there is a reasonable chance for a cure, it is acceptable to offer experimental treatments for a disease to patients who suffer from extreme symptoms of that disease.

Conclusion

It's never acceptable to offer an experimental treatment to patients who don't have any extreme symptoms of that disease.

Evidence

If a patient is showing extreme symptoms from a disease, then it's acceptable to offer an experimental treatment. Those patients are best able to weigh the tradeoffs of doing an experimental treatment.

Evaluation

The second premise is there to potentially hide the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. The author is performing an illegal negation: If a patient has extreme symptoms, then it's acceptable to offer experimental. thus, if a patient does not have extreme symptoms, then it's not acceptable to offer experimental.

Goal

Look for an argument that says, If you're of type X, then thing Y applies. Thus, if you're not of type X, then thing Y doesn't apply

15.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the flawed reasoning in the medical ethicist's argument?

Even a geological engineer with
Bad Conclusion Match
The original conclusion was "it is never acceptable". This conclusion is "we shouldn't always expect it". The mismatch between "it never happens" and "you shouldn't expect it every time; there will be some counterexamples" is enough to eliminate. The premise is also a weak match, though, since it is again saying something wishy-washy: this type of person sometimes loses money. The premise from the original was universal: it is always acceptable for this type of person.
5% picked this
One is always in a
Bad Conclusion Match
This starts off promising enough: If you test-drove, then you will be in a better position to judge value. So the matching conclusion would be: Thus, people who don't test-drive are never in a position to judge value.
6% picked this
Correct
Someone born and raised in
Why this is right
Yes, this replicates the formula we were looking for. If you're of type X, then thing Y applies. if you were born and raised here, left, then came back, then you're qualified to judge. Thus, if you're not of type X, then thing Y doesn't apply Thus, if you weren't born and raise here, then you're not qualified to judge.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
One can never eliminate all
Not a Flaw
It seems pretty reasonable to argue, 'if you can't change X, and trying to change X could actually screw you up, then a reasonable person would learn to accept X."
2% picked this
Almost any industrial development will
Bad Conclusion Match
This started out okay: If industrial development, then very likely to have unwelcome environmental byproducts. But it would need to conclude: Thus, if not an industrial development, then very unlikely to have unwelcome environmental byproducts.
5% 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