Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q8 Editorial: If current trends continue

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

Editorial: If current trends continue, obesity will soon be the leading cause of preventable illness in our country.

Conclusion (clearly, therefore)

Doctors need more training in the treatment of obesity.

Evidence

45% of docs don't feel qualified to advise their patients about weight-related issues.

If current trends continue, obesity will soon be the leading cause of preventable illness.

Evaluate / Goal

We know we want a principle whose outcome sounds like "then need more training", because we're trying to support the idea that docs need more training when it comes to obesity.

The trigger just has to be applicable to doctors/obesity. If we were going to predict an "If / Then" linking idea, it would sound like,

8.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editor's argument?

  1. Doctors should not be trained

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We don't really have to read this one closely, if we're savvy enough to see that this is a principle whose outcome would read "should not be trained". We want a principle whose outcome supports or matches the idea that doctors "should be trained more". This rule looks like this: If there aren't effective → Docs shouldn't be treatments for condition X trained for X As it turns out, the trigger also is a bad match. The argument never discusses whether there are / aren't effective treatments for obesity.

    1% picked this

  2. Changes in the way that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We don't really have to read this one closely, if we're savvy enough to see that this is a principle whose outcome would read "changes in the way doctors are trained are not warranted." We want a principle whose outcome supports or matches the idea that changes in the way doctors are trained concerning obesity "is warranted". This rule looks like this (once we contrapose it so that the right side resembles the conclusion): If there haven't been changes → no change in training in treatment options for X for X is warranted As it turns out, the trigger also is a bad match. The argument never discusses whether there have / haven't been any changes in treatment options for X.

    1% picked this

  3. Doctors do more good when

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We don't really have to read this one closely, if we see that this principle only helps us judge whether "doctors do more good" in situation X vs. Y. We're trying to support a conclusion that "doctors should get more training", which doesn't resemble "do more good" language at all. Furthermore, the other half of this answer doesn't match the Evidence. We weren't dealing with a comparison between preventable and unpreventable conditions. The argument only talks about obesity which is identified as a preventable cause of illness.

    1% picked this

  4. Doctors should focus their efforts

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    Again, there's no language in this answer that matches well with our "doctors need more training on obesity". The closest this rule would get is saying that "doctors should focus their efforts" on obesity. The other half of this rule is talking about whether doctors can treat a certain condition more effectively than another. That doesn't match our evidence language at all. We never heard that doctors can treat obesity more effectively than other conditions. This rule looks like this: If docs can treat condition → docs should focus their X most effectively efforts on X

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    Doctors should be adequately trained

    Why this is right

    At long last, we have an answer that relates to the conclusion! We're trying to support a conclusion that says "doctors need more training when it comes to obesity" and this finally provides us with a rule that talks about how much doctors need to be trained. It looks like this: If there is an underlying docs should be cause of a preventable → adequately trained illness to treat it Would this rule apply to obesity? Is it an underlying cause of a preventable illness? Sure we're told it will soon be the leading cause of preventable illness. Are doctors currently adequately trained to treat obesity? No, about 45% of doctors said they don't feel qualified to advise their patients about weight-related issues. So this rule seems to support the idea that doctors need more training when it comes to obesity. (Whereas correct answers on Principle-Strengthen used to be much easier to predict, because they more closely matched the language of the Premise and Conclusion, correct answers nowadays are weirder, like this. We want to be very flexible when it comes to the trigger. If it's applicable, we're good. It doesn't need to capture all the concepts in the evidence. But we should be stubborn when it comes to the outcome. It still needs to sound a lot like the conclusion.)

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

    95% 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