PT30.S4.Q20 - Consumer advocate: The introduction of a new drug

lsat4life

There is a myth out there that on Strengthen questions the LSAT will always give us four definitive non-strengtheners and only one strengthener. But this problem is arguably definitive proof that the myth is false.

(B) is not the correct answer. Yet it is a necessary assumption of this argument, because if the social impact of none of the new drugs is poorly understood, then we don't have any reason for the premises to support the claim that we should be generally slowing down introduction of the new drugs to the marketplace. The clear assumption of this argument is that we don't have a good understanding of most of the new drugs on the marketplace, and (B) is a smaller assumption contained within that larger one, which makes it necessary. (Note that there is an argument that it is not necessary because the argument just has to assume that we don't have a "good" understanding of these new drugs, not that our undestanding is "poor". That view has merit, but I don't believe it is important to deal with here.)

In other problems, a necessary assumption has been a correct answer to a Strengthen question. And that makes sense, because providing a necessary assumption does, at a minimum, help the argument.

But here, although (B) is necessary, it is not correct, because (A) is better. Clearly, either not all necessary assumptions are strengtheners or some strengthen problems will require us to pick the best of multiple strengtheners.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-20/

BinghamtonDave

I don't want to be really nit-picky here, but does (B) lacking the word "now" still make it necessary? Meaning, our set in the stimulus is drugs "now being tested" and (B) is just about drugs being tested. Curious as to where this leads us in the discussion.

David

lsat4life

@BinghamtonDave said:
I don't want to be really nit-picky here, but does (B) lacking the word "now" still make it necessary? Meaning, our set in the stimulus is drugs "now being tested" and (B) is just about drugs being tested. Curious as to where this leads us in the discussion.

David

As a matter of the meaning, I don't think there is a difference between something "being tested" and "now being tested". How could something have the quality of "being tested" but not "now being tested", and similarly, how could something have the quality of "now being tested" but not "being tested"? They seem to mean the exact same thing to me.

In any case, (A) doesn't use "now being tested", so that cannot be a distinguishing factor between (A) and (B).

BinghamtonDave

I'm open to any correction here.
The negation as I see it: It is not true that "the social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood."
Meaning, all of the new drugs being tested are understood better than poorly. Actually "not poorly" but lets assume that we are talking about fair-good-excellent etc, rather than something less than poorly understood: i.e "far from certain" because if something is far from certain I'm not sure if it can be "poorly" understood. I'm choosing not to go down that "unknown-unknowns" Donald Rumsfeld rabbit hole.

I think that is the fair negation of the answer choice.

With this in mind and with being as the present (I would agree with you, to read now) participle of "be," I think we do have a necessary answer choice here.

Which leads us to your question. My thinking on this is how the test writers would defend this (assuming two different people looking at the language very carefully haven't made an error) is what most strengthens.

You could always ask the LSAC about this, I have read their responses. I would be more than willing to assist in any way you see fit in that regard.

David