PT47.S1.Q19 - There have been no new cases...

If Glory then GutsIf Glory then Guts Member
edited March 2021 in Logical Reasoning 175 karma

I didn't want to leave a blank during the timed PT so I chose B even though I really didn't like any of the options at all even after BR.

For A, which is the credited AC, we are told OPV causes 12 cases + no natural cases of Polio each year while IPV causes only 6 + a "few" natural cases.

In this context, it appears to me that a "few" could refer to any single digit number given the values provided of the cases created by the vaccines in the stimulus. So if we take A to be true, then IPV total cases to be 6 + (2) through 6 + (5), could reasonably be a strengthener in my view. So could this choice not be a strengthen, neutral ((6) + (6)), or weaken, thus invalidating it?

Are we simply meant to infer that a "few" is defined in relation to the total population of North America, presumably some large number in the hundreds, if not thousands, and NOT in relation to the value of the "artificial" cases, 12 and 6 by the OPV and IPV respectively?

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-19/

Comments

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    I don't think you need to assign a value to "few". Task is to weaken: There will be 6 instead of 12 vaccination induced cases of polio if we switch from OVP to IPV, therefore we should switch.

    Answer A just says there will be some natural cases that come along with such change. So the support the premise (reduction in vaccination induced cases) gives to the conclusion (so we should switch) is effectively weakened (because a 6 case reduction isn't our actual net reduction from the proposed switch). It doesn't have to refute the argument, just weaken it.

  • If Glory then GutsIf Glory then Guts Member
    175 karma

    That's really helpful thanks! I can even see that if we take a few to be 2 or 3, then the support the premise gives to the conclusion is still weakened, because there are now fewer cases reduced by the switch than there was without it. Is that fair?

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    Yup, thats how I see it.

  • Sailor Moon LSATSailor Moon LSAT Member ⭐
    200 karma

    I also just think the fact that there are naturally occurring new cases means that maybe IPV isn't as effective. Or if it's effective, the fact that there are naturally occurring new cases is a major downside that didn't happen with just the OPV.

Sign In or Register to comment.