Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q12 Physician: Of the health experts

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

Physician: Of the health experts who advocate moderate consumption of alcohol for its cardiac benefits, some say that red wine is the most beneficial.

Conclusion (So)

Their evidence is inconclusive. rephrase: The statistical evidence that people who drink moderate red wine are less likely to have heart disease doesn't show that red wine is the most beneficial alcohol for cardiac benefits.

Evidence

They have yet to determine what biochemical mechanism would make drinking moderate amounts of red wine different from drinking moderate amounts of other alcohol.

Evaluate

In terms of Linking ideas, our author is definitely making some move like this: You can't explain the Your evidence biochemical mechanism → that X > Y is for why X is better than Y inconclusive

If we shifted more into looking for Objections, we'd be thinking,

Maybe we could just say that the data is so undeniable, that we can tell this is happening even if we can't explain why / how it's happening.

Goal

Look for an answer establishing the link between "undetermined biochemical mechanism" and "inconclusive evidence", or look for an answer that, if negated, would weaken the argument by letting us argue that this evidence could be conclusive, even though we don't understand the causal mechanism.

12.

Which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the physician's conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. If a substance has health

    Out of Scope: should advocate

    When Necessary Assumption answers offer conditional statements, we ask ourselves whether the author made that move. Did she establish the left side of the arrow and then conclude / assume the right side? There is no match at all for the right side of this. The argument is never talking about physicians or saying what they should advocate.

    1% picked this

  2. Assertions regarding the health benefits

    Wrong Ending

    This assertion regarding the health benefits of the drink red wine is supported by statistical evidence. The reason the author rejects evidence as inconclusive is that it doesn't include an explanation of the biochemical mechanism behind the purported connection between wine and cardiac health. So this answer would better match an assumption the author makes if it said, "Assertions regarding the health benefits of X should be supported by an identification of what biochemical mechanism allows X to be beneficial."

    2% picked this

  3. Physicians should not make any

    Out of Scope: should

    Again, like (A), this answer is hitting us with a totally out of scope normative term like "should". Nothing in the argument discusses what physicians should / shouldn't recommend.

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    Evidence regarding the health benefits

    Why this is right

    This matches the linking idea we were searching for, "If haven't determined biochemical mechanism, then evidence is inconclusive". This is saying that "Being conclusive requires being corroborated by accurate accounts of the mechanisms involved." Conclusive → Corroborated by accurate evidence accounts of the mechanisms The contrapositive of this rule looks a lot like our argument, If it hasn't been corroborated then not by accurate accounts of the → conclusive mechanisms involved Beyond looking at the conditional and deeming that, "Yes .. the argument does make this move", we could also negate this answer and feel how it weakens. The author said, "Sure they provided stats, but they haven't determined the mechanism involved, so their evidence is inconclusive." Our negation would sound like, "You don't need to corroborate evidence about the health benefits of drinks with an account of the mechanism involved in order for the evidence to be conclusive." That definitely sounds like an objection!

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

    88% picked this

  5. One should try to find

    Out of Scope: should

    Just like (A) and (C), this is introducing the language of "should", which doesn't appear anywhere in the argument. The argument is descriptive, not normative. The author is only making claims about what is, not about what should be.

    2% 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