LSAT 126 – Section 3 – Question 07

LSAT 126 - Section 3 - Question 07

October 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:00

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
PT126 S3 Q07
+LR
Argument part +AP
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
153
B
8%
156
C
2%
153
D
1%
148
E
89%
163
135
143
152
 +Medium 144.364 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Scientist: In our study, chemical R did not cause cancer in laboratory rats. But we cannot conclude from this that chemical R is safe for humans. After all, many substances known to be carcinogenic to humans cause no cancer in rats; this is probably because some carcinogens cause cancer only via long-term exposure and rats are short lived.

Summarize Argument
The fact that chemical R did not cause cancer in rats does not mean chemical R is safe for humans. Many substances cause cancer in humans but not rats. This likely because some substances cause cancer through long term exposure and rats live short lives.

Identify Argument Part
This is context that sets up the argument. The conclusion refers to this context when it says: we cannot conclude from “this.” The stimulus is arguing that this piece of information is not enough to draw a conclusion.

A
It is cited as evidence against the conclusion that chemical R is safe for humans.
It is not evidence, and no conclusion is being drawn that chemical R is safe.
B
It is advanced to support the contention that test results obtained from laboratory rats cannot be extrapolated to humans.
This is not used to support that extrapolation cannot occur, or anything else. We are told that this information is not sufficient to draw a conclusion about humans.
C
It illustrates the claim that rats are too short lived to be suitable as test subjects for the carcinogenic properties of substances to which humans are chronically exposed.
While this describes a feature in the later part of the argument, the text in question does not illustrate this claim. It is just context.
D
It is used as evidence to support the hypothesis that chemical R causes cancer in humans via long-term exposure.
The conclusion being drawn is that this statement is not enough to say the chemical is safe for humans. No hypotheses are formed about how chemical R might cause cancer.
E
It is cited as being insufficient to support the conclusion that chemical R is safe for humans.
The conclusion is that “we cannot conclude from this (the text in question) that chemical R is safe for humans.” The argument tells us that this statement is not enough to draw that conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply