Panelist: Medical research articles

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

TopicsFlaw

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

Free to start

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

Panelist: Medical research articles cited in popular newspapers or magazines are more likely than other medical research articles to be cited in subsequent medical research. Thus, it appears that medical researchers' judgments of the importance of prior research are strongly influenced by do not strongly correspond to the research's true importance.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that 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

The panelist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds

Answer choices

Unsupported1% picked this
presents counterarguments to a view that is not actually held by
The panelist does not provide any counterarguments.
1%
Correct86% picked this
fails to consider the possibility that popular newspapers and magazines do a good job of identifying the most
Why this is right
This presents an alternative explanation for why someone cited in popular newspapers and magazines would be more likely to be cited in subsequent medical research.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86%
Out of Scope: eminence of scientists8% picked this
takes for granted that coverage of medical research in the popular press is more concerned with the eminence of the scientists involved than
This almost feels like the flipside of (B). We're assuming that the press ISN'T picking who to profile based on the importance of the research, so are we assuming that the press IS picking who to profile based on the fame of the scientists involved? No we never talk about them seeking out famous scientists. The idea is that by being profiled in the press, that research will become famous, but we have no indication that the press is accounting for current-levels-of-fame when they decide which research to cover. The author doesn't have to believe that the press is more concerned with scientists' fame than the content of the research. As long as the press is picking based on something other than "the most important research", the author's argument will still work. If the press picks which research to profile based on the attractiveness of the scientists involved, the author's argument would still work.
8%
Too Weak3% picked this
fails to consider the possibility that popular newspapers and magazines are able to review only a minuscule percentage
The panelist’s conclusion would not be undermined, even If popular newspapers reviewed only a minuscule percentage of medical research articles.
3%
Wrong Flaw2% picked this
draws a conclusion that is logically equivalent to
The conclusion is causal, while the evidence is a correlation.
2%

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