Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q11 Wounds become infected because

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

Wounds become infected because the break in the skin allows bacteria to enter.

Given that...

Wounds become infected because the break in the skin allows bacteria to enter.

Infection slows healing.

Honey contains significant quantities of bacteria.

How can it be that...

In a study at a Nigerian hospital, cleaned wounds that were treated with honey healed faster, on average, than both cleaned wounds treated with antibiotic ointment and wounds cleaned but not otherwise treated.

Evaluate / Goal

We need an answer to explain why the bacteria in the honey isn't causing the wounds to heal more slowly, and why the honey actually speeds healing. Maybe the bacteria in honey is different somehow from the bacteria that normally infects wounds. Or maybe something in honey speeds the healing of wounds to a much greater extent than the bacteria slows healing.

11.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the results of the study and the stated facts about wounds, bacteria, infection, and healing?

Wounds that have simply been
Irrelevant Comparison
We want to know why coating the wound with honey is working so well, and this answer provides no information about honey at all. This answer makes us think that antibiotics are worse than soap/water, but we don't know why, and we can't say anything about why honey beats both methods.
0% picked this
The bacteria found in honey
No Impact
This doesn't provide any reason for why honey is more effective than an antibiotic. It tries to downplay the risk of honey (it's not as concentrated as the bacteria that gives way to infections), and it somewhat diminishes antibiotics by saying they are rarely 100% effective at killing bacteria. But we don't have any reason to think that honey is even 1% effective at killing bacteria. So why is applying honey to a wound achieving better outcomes?
4% picked this
Correct
Honey has properties that inhibit
Why this is right
This tells us something helpful about honey and damaging about antibiotics, allowing us to say why honey is better than nothing and also why honey is better than antibiotics. Honey is better than nothing because honey slows down the growth of potentially infection-causing bacteria. Honey is better than antibiotics, because the latter damages wound tissue which slows healing.
Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
The high concentration of sugar
Too Weak
Haha, what a weird answer. It's just a subset of (C). Why would we ever pick this one if we can get two facts from (C), including this one? If this answer were correct, then it would imply that (C) is also correct, because (C) provides the same information. This answer helps explain why honey is better than nothing, but it doesn't help explain why honey is better than antibiotic ointment.
11% picked this
The antibiotic ointment used in
Too Weak
This answer is also a subset of (E), the part that told us why honey is better than antibiotic ointment. This answer wouldn't be as useful as (C), since (C) not only explained why honey is better than antibiotic ointment but also explained why honey is better than nothing.
8% 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