Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q12 Public health will improve more quickly

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

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results.

Conclusion

If medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-review journals before informing the press of those findings, public health will improve more quickly.

Evidence (this is because)

Public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health. Meanwhile, the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

Evaluate

Suppose a research lab believed they had discovered that drinking a teaspoon of hydrogen peroxide twice a day was able to kill COVID.

In the current world, they can't just run to the press and tell them, "Two teaspoons of hydrogen peroxide will kill COVID!" Instead, they have to submit this finding to the peer-review process. Other scientists will review their work and possibly even try to replicate the same experiment to see if they achieve similar results, before this finding can be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

At that point, the press can then be informed of this result.

Our author is saying,

Since the author is making a recommendation and predicting an improvement to public health, we should analyze this in terms of Net Gain / Loss. We want to think about the pros and cons of the Current Way vs. the New Way and see if we're convinced that the New Way is on the whole better.

In the example we just spoke of, is there some way that the New Way would actually be a net loss for public health?

Sure! What if it turns out that drinking two teaspoons of hydrogen peroxide does not actually effectively get rid of COVID and it does significant damage to a person's intestines?

The peer-review process will protect the public from taking bad advice from premature medical research results that might not be correct.

Goal

The argument seems to assume that medical researchers almost always have their initial findings vindicated by the peer-review process. The author thinks that we're pointlessly delaying the public release of accurate / valuable information. But the author is failing to consider that the peer-review process might be protecting the public from inaccurate / potentially-harmful "conclusions" reached by medical researchers.

Look for an answer ruling out that sort of objection.

12.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Many medical researchers do not

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: researchers refuse to review This answer is about a very specific scenario in which a medical researcher is asked to review someone else's work and they're like, "Actually, I'm too busy right now. I'm in a critical phase of my own research." The argument was never remotely addressing such a specific storyline. It doesn't matter whether the author thinks that this sort of "sorry, I'm too busy" refusal happens many times, tons of times, never, etc.

    1% picked this

  2. Reviewers for many medical journals

    Irrelevant Distinction

    This does have the lovable ruling-out "not" that typifies so many correct answers on Necessary Assumption (Defender-style answers). We can negate this and ask ourselves whether it would turn into an objection. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "The reviewers for many medical journals are themselves medical researchers"? Nope. If anything, that's probably what the author is assuming. After all, it's called peer-review for a reason.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    People would use new medical

    Why this is right

    The author's argument is saying that "the public will benefit sooner if the medical researchers take their discovery to the press right away, rather than waiting until it shows up in a peer-reviewed journal". In order for the public health to benefit from this new information, the public would have to be willing to use that new medical information. This answer is just establishing that baseline of plausibility for this Plan to achieve its Goal. If we negate this answer, it's saying "If new medical information has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then people would not use that new medical info yet". This would destroy the Net Gain the author was hoping to achieve with her plan. She's telling medical researchers to go right away to the press so that the public can immediately report, "A research lab claims to have found that two teaspoons of hydrogen peroxide a day can kill COVID". The negation of this answer is saying that people wouldn't actually act on this new information yet. They'd be like, "Okayyyyy, I'm not so sure. I'm going to wait until the rest of the medical community has a chance to weigh in on the efficacy and safety of this treatment." Thus, even if medical researchers started publicizing their findings sooner, it wouldn't cause public health to improve more quickly. People would still be waiting for the peer-review process either way.

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

    82% picked this

  4. The peer-review process could be

    Contradicted

    The final sentence says that the peer-review process is unavoidably slow.

    8% picked this

  5. New medical information that is

    Too Strong: not usually

    This does have the lovable ruling-out "not" that typifies so many correct answers on Necessary Assumption (Defender-style answers). We can negate this and ask ourselves whether it would turn into an objection. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "New medical info that's first published in peer-reviewed journals usually does receive public attention?" No, that has no effect. The author thinks in the current world that once new medical info is published in a peer-reviewed journal, that's when public health starts to improve (either because the journal article itself receives public attention or because that's when the press is finally notified of the discovery, or both). The author's plan is all about getting information to the public before it's been reported in a peer review journal. The author is assuming that "new medical information does not usually receive public attention before it's been published in a peer-review journal".

    7% 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