LSAT 126 – Section 4 – Question 13

LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 13

October 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:09

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
PT126 S4 Q13
+LR
+Exp
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
155
B
1%
158
C
94%
163
D
1%
153
E
0%
152
127
136
145
 +Easier 147.084 +SubsectionMedium

Sherrie: Scientists now agree that nicotine in tobacco is addictive inasmuch as smokers who try to stop smoking suffer withdrawal symptoms. For this reason alone, tobacco should be treated the same way as other dangerous drugs. Governments worldwide have a duty to restrict the manufacture and sale of tobacco.

Fran: By your own admission, “addictive” is broad enough to include other commonly consumed products, such as coffee and soft drinks containing caffeine. But of course the manufacture and sale of these products should not be restricted.

Speaker 1 Summary
Sherrie argues that governments should restrict the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. Why? Because tobacco is addictive, which Sherrie believes is sufficient to warrant treating tobacco like other dangerous drugs.

Speaker 2 Summary
Fran’s argument supports the implied conclusion that just being addictive is not a sufficient reason to restrict the manufacture and sale of a product. Fran gets there by pointing out that caffeine is also addictive, and then claiming that restrictions on caffeine products like coffee are not justified. This logically leads to the unstated conclusion that addictive potential alone is not enough to justify restrictions.

Objective
We’re looking for something Sherrie and Fran disagree about. They disagree about whether a product being addictive is sufficient to justify restricting its manufacture and sale.

A
The manufacture and sale of all drugs should be regulated by governments.
Neither Sherrie nor Fran makes this claim. Even Sherrie only says that “dangerous” drugs should be regulated, but never mentions drugs that are not dangerous.
B
Coffee and soft drinks that contain caffeine should not be regulated by governments.
Fran might agree with this (if we assume that “regulated” and “restricted” mean the same thing), but Sherrie never states an opinion. It’s unclear what Sherrie thinks should be done about caffeine products.
C
Agreement by scientists that a substance is addictive justifies government restrictions on products containing that substance.
Sherrie agrees with this, but Fran disagrees—this is the point of disagreement. Sherrie uses this claim directly as a premise. Fran, however, says that caffeine, an addictive substance, should not be restricted. So Fran thinks not all addictive substances should be restricted.
D
Scientists are not proper authorities with respect to the question of whether a given substance is addictive.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Sherrie directly refers to scientists as proper authorities, and Fran doesn’t disagree. Instead, Fran’s disagreement is about the policy decisions that should follow from a substance being addictive.
E
Scientists and governments have a duty to cooperate in regulating drugs to protect the public health.
Neither speaker talks about cooperation between scientists and government. Their discussion is about whether a certain government policy should follow from a scientific finding, not about how scientists and governments should interact.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply