Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S2 · Q18 Some potential anticancer drugs

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

Some potential anticancer drugs work by depriving growing tumors of needed blood vessels.

Statements

As we search for Causal, Conditional, Comparative, or Pivot type wording, we see two causal claims.

causal (work by) Some anticancer drugs work by depriving growing tumors of needed blood vessels.

causal (work by) These drugs inhibit the process of angiogenesis, which is the creation of new blood vessels.

causal (prevent) The same drugs prevent obesity.

Evaluate

They tell us the causal mechanism by which anticancer drugs work, inhibiting the creation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis), and then they tell us that the same drugs prevent obesity in rodents.

So it seems like the synthesis we could get here is that the same causal mechanism somehow prevents obesity.

Goal

If we were to try to use what we learned from the first two sentences with what we're told in the last sentence, we would probably be saying something like, .

18.

The statements above, if true, lend the strongest support to which one of the following?

The cells in tumors are
Unknown Comparison
We know that both tumors and obesity are thwarted by inhibiting angiogenesis, but that doesn't mean that tumor cells and fat cells are closer to each other than to other types of cells in the body. We have no means of comparing them to other cells in the body.
7% picked this
Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis would
Out of Scope: lose weight
This is a very tempting answer, since it reinforces our prediction that "inhibiting angiogenesis prevents obesity in rodents". But preventing obesity is a very different concept from losing weight (reversing obesity). Sunscreen prevents me from getting a sunburn, but if I'm already sunburnt, applying sunscreen doesn't help me to lose the sunburn.
16% picked this
Correct
Fat tissue depends on angiogenesis
Why this is right
This reinforces our prediction that "inhibiting angiogenesis prevents obesity in rats". Now, are there problems with this correct answer? Oh my heavens, yes. 1. depends is very strong However, we were told that tumors need these blood vessels to be created and that this drug prevents cancer from spreading by denying them their needed blood vessels. Since we're saying the same drug (that inhibits angiogenesis) works to prevent obesity, it's reasonable to think that fat cells also need / depend on blood vessels. 2. Fat tissue? Where did that come from? Well, naturally it relates to obesity, but it sounds overly specific. It also might concern people that they're using outside knowledge when it comes to connecting obesity with fat tissue. You're allowed to use common sense knowledge. If you asked 10 people on the street whether obesity was connected to fat, they'd probably all say yes. Is is common sense that obesity involves the growth of fat tissue? Hmm, pretty close. I think idiots like me wouldn't have ever defined obesity that way, because we're not smart enough about biology to think to use the term fat tissue, but if you asked me if someone who was becoming obese or more obese was gaining fat tissue, I would say, "yeah, right?" 3. Isn't this too broad? We only should be able to say "fat tissue in rodents depends on angiogenesis". Sure, we were only told about rodents, but it's common sense that lots of testing of products and medicines happens on rodents before it's used on humans, since rodents are also mammals and our physiology is apparently similar enough that what we learn from testing rodents usually ports over pretty well to humans too. (Guinea pigs are rodents, and we probably all know the expression of "I don't want to be the guinea pig" means "I don't want to be the test subject") 4. Jeez, Patrick, if you have to itemize multiple possible qualms and then kinda make peace with each one, doesn't that add up to a pretty poorly supported answer? Yes, kind of. But is there a more supported answer? This question stem tolerates fuzzy support, if no other answer has clearer support.
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
Rodents with cancer are more
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: rodents with cancer Unsupported Comparison We have no way to say that rodents with cancer are more obese than healthy rodents. This answer seems to want to bait people into thinking, "If you took drug X, it would get rid of your obesity and your cancer, so I guess that means the rodents with cancer haven't taken the drug and are still obese". But there isn't any sense in which this drug has been distributed to rodents across the world. The obesity drug has been administered to a handful of rodents in an experimental setting (we have no idea whether those rodents did / didn't have cancer). This answer is addressing all the rodents in the world with cancer, a group we know nothing about.
4% picked this
Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis also
Out of Scope: vital nutrients
Nothing in this paragraph says anything about absorbing vital nutrients. This answer wants people to make an unsupported link from "If it prevents obesity, then it prevents you from absorbing vital nutrients".
3% 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