Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q12 Tamika: Many people have been

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

Tamika: Many people have been duped by the claims of those who market certain questionable medical products.

Conclusion

You can't explain the recent trend among medical professionals toward being susceptible to fraudulent marketing claims by saying that they don't have the medical knowledge necessary to see through the seller's fraudulent claims.

Evidence

The medical professionals have no lack of medical knowledge.

Evaluate

The argument itself is pretty short and sweet. You can't explain X's behavior by citing Y. After all, Y wouldn't apply to X.

In more generic Method language, we could say that Tamika .

Goal

Look for any answer whose wording we can match up with the argument.

12.

Tamika's argument proceeds by

  1. showing by analogy that medical

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The answer is saying "the author shows, by doing X. that Y". The X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author concluding that "medical professionals should not be susceptible to the marketers' fraudulent claims"? No. Our author is concluding "their susceptibility cannot be explained by citing a lack of medical knowledge".

    11% picked this

  2. arguing against a hypothesis by

    Bad Evidence Match

    The answer is saying "the author argues Y, by showing X". The X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion "going against a hypothesis"? Yes. A causal explanation = a hypothesis. The conclusion is saying "You can't use this same explanation/hypothesis to account for the susceptibility among medical professionals." Okay, was the evidence saying, "After all, this explanation can't account for the behavior of everyone"? No, the premise was "After all, these medical professionals have no lack of medical knowledge." It's true that the author believes, "the hypothesis that lack of medical knowledge causes susceptibility to fraud can't account for the behavior of everyone". But according to this interpretation of this answer, we would be accusing the author of rejecting this hypothesis for everyone, not just for medical professionals. Her argument would be saying, "Since the lack of medical knowledge hypothesis can't explain everyone's susceptibility, it doesn't explain anyone's susceptibility". The fixed version of this answer would sound like, "arguing that a hypothesis cannot account for the behavior of everyone by showing that the hypothesis would not apply to one segment of the population".

    11% picked this

  3. explaining the susceptibility of medical

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The answer is saying "the author explains Y, by doing X." The X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion "explaining the susceptibility of medical professionals to the marketers' fraudulent claims"? No. The conclusion is "rejecting one possible explanation for the susceptibility of medical professionals to the marketers' fraudulent claims. We could bail at this point, but the Evidence half of this answer is contradicted, also. The author affirms the expertise of the professionals in her premise (last sentence). She doesn't cast doubt on their expertise.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    arguing that since two groups

    Why this is right

    The answer is saying "the author argues that since X, there must be Y". So the X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion saying "there must be different explanations for why group A vs. group B behaves a certain way"? Sure, kind of. The conclusion says "the same explanation cannot be given", which indicates two different explanations are needed. Is the evidence pointing to a way in which two groups are disanalogous (i.e. different) in an important way? Yes. Group A (ordinary people) can have their susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims explained by their lack of medical knowledge necessary to see through the fraudulent claims. Group B (medical professionals) cannot have their susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims explained by a lack of medical knowledge, because people in Group B, unlike those in Group A, have no lack of medical knowledge.

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

    75% picked this

  5. arguing that an explanation should

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The answer is saying "the author argues Y in spite of X". The X-part would have to match some counterpoint, and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion " arguing that an explanation should be accepted? No. The conclusion is "rejecting one possible explanation for the susceptibility of medical professionals to the marketers' fraudulent claims."

    1% 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