LSAT 112 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 112 - Section 4 - Question 20

December 2001

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT112 S4 Q20
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
52%
170
B
31%
163
C
5%
157
D
9%
164
E
3%
162
157
166
175
 +Hardest 142.561 +SubsectionEasier

Consumer advocate: The introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good understanding of its social impact. However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. It is obvious, then, that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being tested.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing new drugs now being tested to the marketplace. This is based on the rule that the introduction of a new drug into the market place should depend on our having a good understanding of its social impact. Our understanding of the social impact of a newly marketed antihistamine, however, is not good.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the social understanding of most new drugs now being tested is not good.

A
The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested.
Our understanding of the new antihistamine is not clear. If that level of understanding is better than our understanding of most new drugs, that suggests our understanding of most new drugs is not good.
B
The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.
This doesn’t help establish that there should be a “general reduction” in bringing new drugs to the market.
C
The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.
We don’t know the level of economic success of the new drugs being tested. So, this has no impact.
D
The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.
Chemical similarity does not imply similar levels of understanding concerning the social impact of a drug. Social impact can be entirely separate from the specific chemical makeup of a drug.
E
The new antihistamine should be on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also.
We know the antihistamine should not be on the market. But (E) doesn’t establish that this implies most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market. If you think it does, you’re mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply