LSAT 117 – Section 4 – Question 01

LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 01

October 2004

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:49

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
PT117 S4 Q01
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
0%
152
B
1%
156
C
97%
162
D
1%
152
E
1%
154
120
127
137
 +Easiest 147.423 +SubsectionMedium

Jones fell unconscious on the job and it was suspected that he had swallowed a certain chemical, so he was rushed to the local hospital’s emergency room. In making her diagnosis, the emergency-room physician knew that if Jones had swallowed the chemical, a deficiency in the content of a mineral in his blood would result. She also knew that deficiency in the mineral causes inflammation of the skin. Since Jones’s skin was not inflamed when he was admitted to the emergency room, the physician concluded that Jones had not swallowed the chemical.

Summarize Argument
The physician concludes that Jones did not swallow the chemical in question. As support, the physician references the following relationship:
Jones swallowed the chemical→mineral deficiency in blood→ skin inflammation
Jones’s skin was not inflamed, so the physician said that he did not swallow the chemical.

Notable Assumptions
The physician assumes that there wouldn’t be any delay in the reactions. If there is any delay in the effects of either the chemical or the mineral deficiency, it could be the case that an insufficient amount of time had passed for Jones’s skin to become inflamed. If this is the case, Jones’s clear skin would be because not enough time had passed, not because he didn’t swallow the chemical.

A
Jones did not know that the chemical was dangerous.
The argument is based on the effects of consuming the chemical; these effects would occur regardless of whether Jones knew about the dangers.
B
Jones had suffered inflammation of the skin in the past.
We care about skin inflammation because it could be an indicator of whether or not Jones consumed the chemical; for the sake of the argument, we don’t care about skin inflammation that occurred independent of Jones’s potential consumption of the chemical.
C
It takes 48 hours for the chemical to bring about deficiency of the mineral in the blood.
This weakens the argument because it gives an alternate explanation for Jones’s clear skin. Jones’s skin could be clear because 48 hours hadn’t yet passed, not because he didn’t consume the chemical. Not enough time would have passed for the physician to make her conclusion.
D
Jones often worked with the chemical.
The argument is about whether or not Jones consumed the chemical in this specific instance; Jones’s history of working with the chemical is not relevant to the physician’s argument.
E
Deficiency in minerals other than the mineral in question can cause inflammation of the skin.
The physician’s argument is based on the fact that Jones’s skin is NOT inflamed, so other potential causes of skin inflammation are not relevant here.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 117 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply