LSAT 120 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 120 - Section 1 - Question 19

October 2005

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

Target time: 1:21

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
PT120 S1 Q19	+LR	Weaken +Weak Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 63% 165 B 25% 159 C 2% 155 D 1% 157 E 10% 160	146 157 168	+Harder	145.819 +SubsectionMedium

There have been no new cases of naturally occurring polio in North America in recent years. Yet there are approximately 12 new cases of polio each year in North America, all caused by the commonly administered live oral polio vaccine (OPV). Substituting inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) for most childhood polio immunizations would cut the number of cases of vaccination-caused polio about in half. Clearly it is time to switch from OPV to IPV as the most commonly used polio vaccine for North American children.

Summarize Argument

IPV should be the most commonly used polio vaccine for North American children, instead of OPV. OPV causes all new cases of polio each year in North America, and IPV would reduce the number of cases by half.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that IPV does not have serious side effects that make it undesirable for use on most children—side effects that may outweigh the benefit of decreasing the number of cases of live polio a year. Furthermore, the author assumes that there are no other significant undesirable consequences that could arise from the proposed switch.

If IPV replaces OPV as the most commonly used polio vaccine, at least a few new cases of naturally occurring polio in North America will result each year.

This weakens the argument. It exploits the author’s assumption that there are no significant undesirable consequences that could arise from the switch. (A) says if IPV replaces OPV, naturally occurring polio would result—something which has not occurred in recent years.

The vast majority of cases of polio caused by OPV have occurred in children with preexisting but unsuspected immunodeficiency disorders.

This does not affect the argument. The author advocates for a switch to IPV to reduce the annual number of polio cases. The specific characteristics of these cases—such as whether the affected children had undiagnosed immunodeficiency disorders—do not weaken the argument.

A child’s risk of contracting polio from OPV has been estimated at 1 in 8.7 million, which is significantly less than the risk of being struck by lightning.

This does not affect the argument. The author does not dispute the idea that the risk is slight; rather, the author argues that the risk could be further reduced by switching to IPV.

Although IPV is preferred in some European nations, most countries with comprehensive child immunization programs use OPV.

This does not affect the argument. The author’s argument is supported solely by evidence from North America, and the conclusion is specific to North America as well. What other continents or countries are doing is not relevant.

IPV, like most vaccines, carries a slight risk of inducing seizures in children with neurological diseases such as epilepsy.

This does not affect the argument. Both OPV and IPV are vaccines—this would apply to both equally.

LSAT 120 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 120 - Section 1 - Question 19

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel