Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S2 · Q1 Studies have shown

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

Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment X produces the same beneficial changes in patients' conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment Y. Furthermore, treatment X is quicker and less expensive than treatment Y. Thus, in treating these illnesses, treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y.

Evidence

Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment X produces the same beneficial changes in patients' conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment Y. Treatment X is quicker and less expensive than treatment Y.

Conclusion

In treating these illnesses, treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y.

Evaluate

There are several advantages to treating these illnesses with treatment X rather than treatment Y. But are there are disadvantages? Perhaps there are some disadvantages that are simply unacceptable that would change which treatment is recommended.

1.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Unlike treatment Y, treatment X

    Why this is right

    Harmful side effects would be considered a disadvantage by anyone.

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

    81% picked this

  2. There are other illnesses for

    Out Of Scope

    Treatment Y’s ability to treat other illnesses are not relevant to the argument’s conclusion about the illnesses discussed in the argument.

    6% picked this

  3. Until recently, treatment X was

    Out Of Scope

    The argument is about which treatment should be preferred today. Whether treatment X was more expensive in the past is not relevant.

    2% picked this

  4. Treatment Y is prescribed more

    Out Of Scope

    The argument is about what should be the case, not what is the case. So whether doctors prescribe treatment Y more than treatment X doesn’t matter in determining which treatment they should recommend.

    3% picked this

  5. A third treatment, treatment Z,

    Out Of Scope

    Treatment Z is not relevant in determining whether treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y or vice versa.

    8% 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