LSAT 158 – Section 3 – Question 09

LSAT 158 - Section 3 - Question 09

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: 1:15

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
PT158 S3 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
71%
163
B
2%
149
C
2%
154
D
12%
153
E
13%
155
142
151
160
 +Medium 145.724 +SubsectionMedium

Consumer advocate: Even relatively minor drug-related interactions can still be harmful to patients. For example, aspirin taken with fruit juice is ineffective. People unaware of this suffer unnecessary discomfort or take more aspirin than necessary. The government should, therefore, require drug companies to notify consumers of all known drug-related interactions.

Summarize Argument
A Consumer Advocate argues that the government should require drug companies to notify consumers of all known drug-related interactions. This is because even minor drug-related interactions can be harmful to patients, and people who are unaware of this suffer discomfort or take more pain relievers than necessary.

Notable Assumptions
The Consumer Advocate assumes that patients would utilize this information to benefit themselves, they may not care.
The author also assumes that the inclusion of minor drug-related interactions will not distract/outweigh the importance of the major ones, thereby causing more harm than good.

A
Providing information on minor drug-related interactions would detract from a patient’s attention to serious interactions.
This weakens the conclusion because it suggests that including more recommendations could lead to patients neglecting more dangerous interactions, causing more harm than good.
B
Many drugs have fewer documented drug-related interactions than does aspirin.
Aspirin is pretty irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument. It is really brought up as an example to demonstrate a broader point.
C
Providing information about all drug-related interactions would result in only negligible price increases for consumers.
While this provides a potential downside to the legislation, it does not weaken the underlying reasoning for why the author supports it.
D
Current research is such that many drug-related interactions have not yet been identified.
This is irrelevant because the argument is concerned with providing information about “known” interactions, not ones that have yet to be identified.
E
Pharmacists usually draw patients’ attention to printed warnings that are provided with drugs.
This does not impact the argument's reasoning because the Consumer Advocate is focused on the labels that *aren’t* currently present. It does not matter if pharmacists are pointing to labels that are already there.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 158 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply