LSAT 132 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 132 - Section 2 - Question 11

December 2010

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:12

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
PT132 S2 Q11
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
87%
164
B
2%
149
C
0%
152
D
8%
156
E
4%
157
129
141
152
 +Easier 148.345 +SubsectionMedium

Scientist: To study the comparative effectiveness of two experimental medications for athlete’s foot, a representative sample of people with athlete’s foot were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received only medication M, and the other received only medication N. The only people whose athlete’s foot was cured had been given medication M.

Reporter: This means, then, that if anyone in the study had athlete’s foot that was not cured, that person did not receive medication M.

Summarize Argument
The reporter concludes that, in a study testing medications for athlete’s foot, anyone who was not cured was not given medication M. This is based on the observation that, in the study, everyone whose athlete’s foot was cured received medication M.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter flaw: confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. In the study, everyone whose athlete’s foot was cured received medication M, making medication M necessary to have been cured in this study. However, that doesn’t mean medication M is sufficient to cure every case that it was used to treat. In other words, it’s possible that not everyone who received medication M was cured.

A
The reporter concludes from evidence showing only that M can cure athlete’s foot that M always cures athlete’s foot.
The argument confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. Only M cures athlete’s foot, making it necessary for curing athlete’s foot in the study. However, that doesn’t mean it’s sufficient to always cure athlete’s foot.
B
The reporter illicitly draws a conclusion about the population as a whole on the basis of a study conducted only on a sample of the population.
The reporter only draws a conclusion about the study, not the population as a whole.
C
The reporter presumes, without providing justification, that medications M and N are available to people who have athlete’s foot but did not participate in the study.
The reporter doesn’t make any claims about the availability of the medications, only their effects on athlete’s foot in the study.
D
The reporter fails to allow for the possibility that athlete’s foot may be cured even if neither of the two medications studied is taken.
The reporter is only drawing a conclusion about the efficacy of medication M based on the study, and doesn’t need to account for the possibility that athlete’s foot could be cured in other ways.
E
The reporter presumes, without providing justification, that there is no sizeable subgroup of people whose athlete’s foot will be cured only if they do not take medication M.
The reporter is only discussing the study, where every participant whose athlete’s foot was cured had received M. The possibility of this kind of subgroup is irrelevant to M being necessary to cure athlete’s foot in the study.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 132 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply