Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S3 · Q17 X: Medical research on animals should not

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

X: Medical research on animals should not be reduced in response to a concern for animals, because results of such research serve to avert human suffering.

X's Conclusion

We should still do research on animals because it helps avert human suffering, and greater weight should be given to human welfare over animal suffering.

X's Evidence

Research on animals helps avert human suffering.

Although there is some animal suffering, greater weight should be given to human welfare.

Evaluate

Speaker Y responds by offering an alternative method for research, (using computer modeling) that achieves the intended benefits without the negative consequences of animal suffering.

Goal

Look for any answer that matches. It might say that Y proposed an alternative method of doing research.

17.

The relationship of Y’s response to X’s argument is that Y’s response

  1. Correct

    contradicts a premise on which

    Why this is right

    X said that there would be an inevitable trade-off between human and animal welfare with this sort of research, and Y's alternative method implicitly contradicts that premise. Inevitable = unavoidable, but Y is showing it's possible to do the research humans need without engendering animal suffering. There doesn't have to be a tradeoff. Animal suffering is avoidable.

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

    73% picked this

  2. disagrees with X about the

    Bad Evidence Match (no disagreement)

    The respondent never directly disagrees with the relative weight of human versus animal welfare; she merely proposes avoiding animal suffering through an alternative.

    12% picked this

  3. presents a logical consequence of

    Bad Evidence Match (no logical consequence)

    There is no logical consequence presented that follows from accepting the original argument. The response instead suggests an alternative, not directly deriving an implication.

    1% picked this

  4. strengthens X’s argument by presenting

    Opposite (strengthening X)

    The response does not strengthen the original argument; it provides an alternative that challenges the necessity of the original method.

    4% picked this

  5. supplies a premise to X’s

    Opposite (supporting X's arg)

    The response does not supply a premise meant to support the argument. Rather, it offers a conflicting idea suggesting a different approach.

    10% 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