Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q24 Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken

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

Dr. Ruiz: Dr. Smith has expressed outspoken antismoking views in public.

Conclusion (clearly)

Dr. Smith cannot be included on a panel that examines the danger of secondhand cigarette smoke.

Evidence

Even though she's otherwise qualified, she has expressed outspoken antismoking views in public.

And we want to ensure that the panel examines the issue in an unbiased manner before coming to any conclusion.

Evaluate

The author is assuming that if you've already expressed outspoken views on an issue being studied, then, despite being qualified, we can't be sure you'd examine this issue in an unbiased manner before coming to any conclusion.

Goal

We need an answer to help us argue that Dr. Smith can still be a part of a panel. So maybe we argue that as long as you're qualified, you can be unbiased. Maybe we argue that anyone you try to grab for this panel is going to have already come to some conclusion about secondhand smoke, so we can't realistically use that as a disqualifier. Or maybe something else.

24.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for countering Dr. Ruiz’ argument that Dr. Smith should not be included on the panel?

  1. Correct

    A panel composed of qualified

    Why this is right

    This helps us argue that Dr. Smith could still be on the panel. The author wanted to disqualify her because he really needs this panel to examine an issue in an unbiased manner before coming to any conclusion. Meanwhile Dr. Smith has already expressed strong public views on this issue. This answer is saying, "Perfect! That's what we want. We have a better chance of getting an unbiased conclusion if we have someone like Dr. Smith, who has a strong public view on the issue. We just have to offset her with someone else who has a strong public view on the issue that conflicts with hers". Basically, it's saying that the better route to an unbiased conclusion is to have people who have a variety of strong opinions, rather than a group with no opinion.

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

    80% picked this

  2. People who hold strong views

    Strengthens

    This helps the author argue that Dr. Smith shouldn't be on the panel. She holds a strong view on the topic of the panel, and according to this answer, she would be unlikely to be able to process any conflicting views or conflicting evidence, (because she will only listen to new evidence if it confirms her pre-existing position).

    3% picked this

  3. A panel that includes one

    Unclear Impact

    We could try to use this answer to say, "Hey, author -- if we make it so that Dr. Smith is the only qualified person with publicly known strong views, then the panel will have more lively discussions". That vaguely sounds like a reason to argue in favor of Smith being on the panel, but there are two problems 1) we don't know that she would be the only qualified person with publicly known strong views 2) way more importantly, the author cares primarily about "examining the issue in an unbiased manner", and this is just saying that Smith would provide "lively discussions". Those two ideas aren't close to being equivalents.

    12% picked this

  4. People who have expressed strong

    No Impact

    Like (C), this would allow us to say, "You should include Smith on the panel", for some vaguely positive sounding reason, that has nothing to do with unbiased analysis. This is saying Smith might be better at raising funds to support her view than would other people. Do we care whether people on this panel can raise funds? What does that have to do with achieving the goal of "examining the issue in an unbiased manner"?

    1% picked this

  5. People who have well-defined strong

    Strengthens

    This helps the author argue that Dr. Smith shouldn't be on the panel. She holds a strong view on the topic of the panel, and according to this answer, she be likely to bias the other panel members toward her view (which is the opposite of the unbiased analysis the author desires).

    4% 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