LSAT 90 – Section 4 – Question 03

LSAT 90 - Section 4 - Question 03

May 2020

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:59

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT90 S4 Q03
+LR
Argument part +AP
A
5%
154
B
1%
144
C
84%
161
D
2%
152
E
8%
156
123
137
151
 +Easier 148.293 +SubsectionMedium

This is an Argument Part question.

We have to identify the role of the statement that “people who are constantly subjected to fire drills eventually come to ignore the fire alarm.”

The stimulus says that we are constantly bombarded by warnings, based on initial studies' tentative conclusions, about this or that food having adverse health effects. For example, we are warned that fat is good one day then bad the next, and these warnings are only based on initial studies' tentative conclusions.

Then it says that if the medical establishment wants people to pay attention to health warnings, it should announce only conclusive results, the kind that can come only from definitive studies. This is the conclusion. And why should we believe this? After all (this is a premise indicator), people who are constantly subjected to fire drills eventually come to ignore the fire alarm. This is the statement whose role we have to identify, and we have just identified that it is a premise.

But this is a premise that supports the conclusion via reasoning by analogy. Author says constantly bombarding people with health warnings is just like constantly subjecting people to fire drills. Constant fire drills only train people to ignore the fire alarm, and similarly, people are going to stop paying attention to health warnings if they are constantly bombarded by them.

Answer Choice (A) says that the statement is presented as an example of the sort of warning referred to in the argument's overall conclusion. It is not. Examples of such warnings would be warnings that are based on definitive studies such as three decades of nutritional studies that have conclusively shown that sugar above a certain amount is bad.

There is a big difference between examples and analogies. Examples are particular instances of generalities. Analogies come from a different set of generalities but share certain features we identify as similar.

Answer Choice (B) says that the statement plays no logical role but instead serves to impugn the motives of the medical establishment. The statement does play a logical role, and it does not impugn the motives of the medical establishment. Such a claim might be something like “the medical establishment receives a ton of funding from food companies that skew their incentives to do objective science.”

Answer Choice (C) says that the statement is an analogy offered in support of the argument's overall conclusion. Perfect.

Answer Choice (D) says that the statement is an analogy that forms part of a scientific objection to the argument's overall conclusion. While the analogy is an objection to something, it is definitely not an objection to the conclusion. Within the conclusion, there is an objection to bombarding people with health warnings. And the statement supports this objection, which means it is supporting the conclusion, not objecting to it.

Answer Choice (E) says that the statement is an analogy offered to clarify the distinction that the physician makes between an initial study and a definitive study. While the physician does make this distinction, a clarification of this distinction is never provided.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 90 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logic Games

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply