LSAT 113 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 113 - Section 3 - Question 06

June 2002

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:10

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
PT113 S3 Q06
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Quantifier +Quant
Sampling +Smpl
A
0%
164
B
2%
161
C
96%
166
D
1%
157
E
1%
153
120
131
142
 +Easiest 146.265 +SubsectionMedium

It is proposed to allow the sale, without prescription, of a medication that physicians currently prescribe to treat the common ear inflammation called “swimmer’s ear.” The principal objection is that most people lack the expertise for proper self-diagnosis and might not seek medical help for more serious conditions in the mistaken belief that they have swimmer’s ear. Yet in a recent study, of 1,000 people who suspected that they had swimmer’s ear, 84 percent had made a correct diagnosis—a slightly better accuracy rate than physicians have in diagnosing swimmer’s ear. Thus, clearly, most people can diagnose swimmer’s ear in themselves without ever having to consult a physician.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people can diagnose swimmer’s ear in themselves without ever needing to consult a physician. As support for this conclusion, the author cites a recent study where 84% of a sample of 1,000 people who believed that they had swimmer’s ear made an accurate diagnosis. The author also notes that this 84% accurate diagnosis rate is slightly higher than doctors’ accuracy.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a high rate of successful self diagnosis supports the idea that people never have to see a doctor for swimmer’s ear; we don’t know that the people in the study had never seen a doctor for swimmer’s ear.

A
Cases in which swimmer’s ear progresses to more serious infections are very rare.
The argument is concerned with whether or not doctors are required for accurate diagnosis of swimmer’s ear. The argument is not concerned with severity of infections, so this information does not weaken the argument.
B
Most of those who suspected incorrectly that they had swimmer’s ear also believed that they had other ailments that in fact they did not have.
(B) provides information about the 16% who made an incorrect self-diagnosis of swimmer’s ear. The argument is about the high rate of accurate self-diagnosis, so this information does not weaken the argument.
C
Most of the people who diagnosed themselves correctly had been treated by a physician for a prior occurrence of swimmer’s ear.
This information attacks the argument’s key assumption that, because of the high rate of accurate self-diagnosis, most people can diagnose themselves without ever seeing a doctor. (C) says that previous visits to a doctor may have informed these accurate self-diagnoses.
D
Physicians who specialize in ear diseases are generally able to provide more accurate diagnoses than those provided by general practitioners.
This does not change the fact that self-diagnoses are more accurate than doctors’ diagnoses in general. The key support for the argument is that self-diagnoses are highly accurate. (D) does not weaken the argument that most people can self diagnose without ever seeing a doctor.
E
For many people who develop swimmer’s ear, the condition disappears without medical or pharmaceutical intervention.
The argument is concerned with diagnosis, not treatment, of swimmer’s ear.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply