LSAT 123 – Section 2 – Question 17

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:30

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
PT123 S2 Q17
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
22%
150
B
36%
154
C
14%
146
D
16%
148
E
12%
152
146
160
173
+Hardest 143.659 +SubsectionEasier

Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that our hospital should make protection of our clients’ confidentiality the highest priority. This is based on the fact that at a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts said that the most significant threat faced by large institutions like ours is unauthorized access to confidential data.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the opinion of computer experts on what is the most important threat to hospitals should have weight in what a hospital should prioritize. This is flawed because we have no reason to think that a computer expert’s opinion on hospital management is something worth following. Another way to frame the flaw is that the author assumes what computer experts said is true. But what they said is the most significant threat does not have to be in fact the most significant.

A
The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.
The argument proposes a potential solution (making confidentiality highest priority) for the alleged problem of unauthorized access to data. But there’s nothing confused about the relationship between the proposed solution and alleged problem.
B
The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
The testimony is from “computer experts.” There’s no reason to believe these computer experts have expertise in hospital management. So, we have no reason to think what they claim is the most significant threat to hospitals is actually the most significant threat.
C
The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that one is the cause of the other.
The premises do not establish a correlation, and the conclusion does not conclude or assume that there’s a causal relationship between two things. The premises merely describe what computer experts said at a conference.
D
The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group.
The argument’s conclusion is not about a group. It’s about what one hospital should do (”we should make the protection...”). If you’re thinking the clients are the “group,” then (D) is still wrong because the premise doesn’t present a sample of clients.
E
The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions.
The experts said that the most significant threat faced by “large universities and hospitals” is unauthorized access. The author assumes this comment is true about his hospital, but doesn’t assume that because it’s true about his hospital, it’s also true about all institutions.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply