Subscription pricing
Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold. ███ ███████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ █ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ █ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The stimulus introduces an herbal mixture that some people have been advocating as an effective cold remedy. We're interested in the argument one cold sufferer uses to reject the claim that this remedy is effective. According to the cold sufferer, if this claim were true — i.e., if this mixture were actually effective — then most people with colds would be using it, since most people with colds want to recover quickly. But the cold sufferer points out that in fact, many people with colds don't use the mixture Therefore, the cold sufferer concludes, the mixture must not be an effective remedy.
Describe Method of Reasoning
To counter the claim that this cold remedy is effective, the cold sufferer sets up an argument involving conditional logic. He gives us the premise that most people with colds want to recover quickly. This idea is never disputed: it's taken as a "given" or a preliminary for the conditional argument that follows, but it's not itself one of the conditions in that argument.
The actual conditional argument runs like this: if this mixture were effective (a sufficient condition), almost all people with colds would be using it (a necessary condition). Since many people with colds are not using it (supposedly, the negation of the necessary condition), the mixture must not be effective (negation of the original sufficient condition). Basically, the cold sufferer is trying to make an argument using the logic of the contrapositive: if A, then B; but since /B, we have to conclude /A.
It's important to see that this argument is flawed. Saying that "many" people don't use the mixture isn't necessarily a negation of the statement "almost all people with colds use the mixture". Remember that "many" on the LSAT is an indefinite quantity similar to "some". The argument also relies on the assumption that people who want to recover from colds quickly would know that this mixture is effective. If they didn't know, then it wouldn't necessarily be true that they would nearly all be using it, even if it were effective.
But for this question, we're not trying to critique this argument. We just want to describe how the cold sufferer is trying to establish his conclusion. To sum up, then, he says that if claim A, the mixture being effective, were true, then B, most people with colds using the mixture, would also be true. But because B, in the cold sufferer's view, is not true, A must also not be true: i.e., the mixture is not an effective remedy.
21.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
finding a claim ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████████████ ████ ███ █████
b
accepting a claim ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
c
showing that conditions █████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ███ ███
d
basing a generalization ██ █ ██████████████ █████ ██ █████████
e
showing that a ███████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █ ███████ ██████ █████ ████████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ █████████