Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S4 · Q8 To qualify as a medical specialist

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

To qualify as a medical specialist, one must usually graduate from a university, then complete approximately four years of medical school, followed by a residency of two to six years in one's specialty.

Conclusion (therefore)

Anyone who has qualified as a recognized medical specialist is competent to practice in his or her specialty.

Evidence

Medical specialists have usually graduated from a university, then done 4 years of med school, then 2-6 years of residency.

And then a recognized specialist must complete an evaluation program directed by a medical specialty board.

Evaluate

The conclusion is a conditional claim (anyone), so we might want to analyze this one's internal logic:

Qualified as competent recognized -----------------> to practice med specialist in specialty

This concept of "competent to practice in their specialty" was never defined in the evidence, so the author must be assuming something that establishes definitively "they're competent".

What were we told is involved in qualifying as a recognized medical specialist?

Well, it's weird because the first sentence is about qualifying as a medical specialist, and the second sentence is about qualifying as a recognized specialist.

Are those the same?

No. We can safely assume that the recognized specialist term in the second sentence means the same thing as the recognized medical specialist in the conclusion. After all, the second sentence is talking about a physician going before a medical specialty board. If that person is a recognized specialist, they're a recognized medical specialist.

So if we're trying to find the piece of Evidence that matches part of the Conclusion's logic path, we would go to the 2nd sentence, which is also about recognized specialist. It tells us that qualifying as a recognized specialist requires completing an evaluation by a medical specialty board.

Qualified as completed recognized ---> eval by medical med specialist specialty board

Does that logic go any further? Were we told an implication of completing an evaluation program by a specialty board?

No. The first sentence wouldn't hook onto this conditional, because there isn't any overlapping concept.

Goal

If this answer is testing the internal logic, then the link we need to add onto the Evidence in order to derive the Conclusion's logic path is this:

completed competent eval by medical → to practice specialty board their specialty

If the answer is ruling out an Objection, then when we negate it, it will help us argue that someone might be qualified as a recognized medical specialist, but not competent to practice their speciality.

for example (A) Medical specialty boards do not sometimes let unqualified physicians complete the evaluation program as a personal favor to the physician.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

People who are not highly
Out of Scope: highly motivated
We can stop reading this six words in. The argument never discussed anyone's motivation, let alone a specific subcategory, highly motivated. The conclusion is about whether or not someone is competent to practice. Being competent doesn't require being highly motivated.
1% picked this
Only the most talented people
Out of Scope: most talented
We can stop reading this five words in. The argument never discussed anyone's talent level, let alone an extreme subset, the most talented people. The conclusion is about whether or not someone is competent. Being competent doesn't require being the most talented.
1% picked this
Correct
No one incompetent to practice
Why this is right
When Necessary Assumption questions have conditional logic in them, we usually want to diagram them (often we'll need to contrapose them) and see if they match a reasoning move the author made. This one requires a negative to positive translation: No A's are B = All A's are ~B (A → ~B) Incompetent to → Doesn't complete practice specialty eval program For correct answers, we usually have to contrapose it, because they hide its appeal by presenting it in contrapositive form. Does complete Competent to eval program → practice specialty Did our author make that reasoning move? Yes! That's how she goes from the 2nd to the 3rd sentence. When we combine this answer with the 2nd sentence, we build the logic path the Conclusion is claiming exists. Evidence + Assumption Qualified completed competent as recog -----> eval prog -----> to practice med spec for specialty specialty
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% picked this
Usually, six to ten years
Too Strong: sufficient
The author doesn't need to think that the first sentence (6-10 years is coming from 4 yrs of med school + 2-6 years of residency) is enough to already qualify as competent. She declares that a recognized specialist will always be competent, but she hasn't commented at all on what percentage of regular medical specialists can be counted on to be confident.
14% picked this
Usually, six to ten years
Too Strong: necessary
Although this appeals to common sense -- it felt like the educational trajectory described in the first sentence was like some chain of requirements -- nothing in the argument said anything in the first sentence was necessary. The conclusion is about recognized specialists, and the only thing we are told is required of recognized specialists is that they complete an evaluation program in their specialty. Another way to detect that this answer is wrong is that by negating it, we'd be saying that "usually people don't need 6-10 years to be competent. People who have studied less than that are usually competent." That wouldn't hurt the author's conclusion at all. The more competent people there are, the more likely the author's conclusion is true. We could only hurt this argument by pointing to the existence of incompetent recognized specialists.
12% 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