Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S2 · Q12 When a patient failed to respond

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

When a patient failed to respond to prescribed medication, the doctor hypothesized that the dosage was insufficient.

Doctor's Initial Hypothesis

First dosage was insufficient.

Evaluate

What was the second set of recommendations? She first advised doubling the dosage. She then advised "resuming initial dosage but stopping herbal beverage".

What was the point of that? It was to rule out the possibility that dosage wasn't the problem, herbal interference was. The results showed that even after the patient quit the herbal drink, the initial dosage still wasn't producing any effect.

Ultimately, the doctor came to realize that both the herbal drink and the initial dosage were to blame. First dosage / Yes herbal: didn't work First dosage / No herbal: didn't work Double dosage / Yes herbal: didn't work Double dosage / No herbal: did work

Neither doubling the dosage nor quitting the herbal drink were sufficient on their own to made the meds work, but doing both together did make the meds work, so they both had an influence.

Goal

Look for something like, .

12.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the manner in which the doctor's second set of recommendations and the results of its application support the doctor's initial hypothesis?

  1. They establish that the doctor's

    Out of Scope: healthfulness

    The doctor was never assessing whether or not the herbal drink was healthful or unhealthful, just whether it was interfering with the meds she was prescribing. (grapefruit juice, for example, is healthful but is known to interfere with the efficacy of certain heart medications)

    1% picked this

  2. They make it less plausible

    True, But Not the Best

    This is an obnoxious answer, because it's technically correct, but it doesn't do the most accurate job of capturing how the 2nd test and its results impacted the ultimate hypothesis. In the moment, the fact that "initial dosage / no herb drink" still failed made it less plausible that the beverage was contributing to the ineffectiveness of the meds. But ultimately, we know that the herb drink was contributing (simply quitting the herb drink and doubling the dosage didn't make the meds work, so we know that herb drink was doing something). Since we know that the beverage did contribute to the ineffectiveness, this answer inaccurately describes our eventual takeaway. The question stem is specifically asking us, "How did this 2nd test support the idea that the initial dosage was too little?" And our answer to that would be, "It showed that you couldn't just fix the problem by eliminating the herbal drink. It showed that something else beyond just whether or not the herbal drink was being consumed was causing the meds to be ineffective."

    9% picked this

  3. They give evidence that the

    Too Strong: was responsible Opposite

    Ultimately, we learn that the beverage and the dosage were each partially responsible for the ineffectiveness of the meds initially. So we don't want to use language for dosage or beverage like "THAT thing was responsible." That language implies that only one thing was responsible, when we know dosage and herbal drink made a difference. Also, the results of the 2nd test made it seem like the beverage was not responsible. It was the results of the 3rd test (no herbal drink, double dosage) that made us realize that 1st test (herbal drink, double dosage) was ineffective because of the herbal drink. The combo of the 1st (herbal / double / didn't work) and the 3rd (no herbal / double / did work) show that the herbal beverage has an effect. The combo of the 2nd (no herbal / single / didn't work) and the 3rd (no herbal / double / did work) show that the double dosage has an effect.

    14% picked this

  4. Correct

    They suggest that the beverage

    Why this is right

    If the beverage had been the only reason that the initial dosage failed, then the 2nd test (single dosage, no herbal) would have worked. But the meds were still ineffective. That showed us that, "If the herbal drink is doing something at all, it's definitely not the only thing that's having an effect". The results of the 2nd test supported the author's notion that the initial dosage was insufficient by showing that clearly something beyond just the herbal beverage was causing the single dosage to fail.

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

    71% picked this

  5. They rule out the possibility

    Out of Scope: wrong medication Opposite

    The doctor was never really entertaining the possibility that she had prescribed the wrong meds, only whether the initial dosage was insufficient. Beyond being out of scope, this answer goes backwards. The fact that the 2nd test showed that "even if you quit your herbal drink, the meds still don't work" would increase the possibility that the wrong meds are being prescribed.

    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