LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 09

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 09

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:03

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
PT137 S4 Q09
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Math +Math
A
1%
152
B
3%
156
C
94%
164
D
0%
147
E
1%
154
128
137
146
 +Easier 146.883 +SubsectionMedium

In a medical study of all of the residents of Groverhill, 35 people reported consulting their physician last year seeking relief from severe headaches. Those same physicians’ records, however, indicate that 105 consultations occurred last year with Groverhill patients seeking relief from severe headaches. Obviously, then, many residents who consulted physicians for this condition did not remember doing so.

Summarize Argument
The author claims that more than 35 people must have visited a doctor for headache treatment last year because there were 105 appointments of that kind in the same time period.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because it assumes that the number of people who reported having a consultation should be expected to match the number of consultations that took place. However, it’s likely that some of the patients visited the doctor more than once, which would explain why there were more consultations than there were people who reported having one.

A
generalizes inappropriately from an unrepresentative sample of residents of Groverhill
The argument cites a study of “all of the residents of Groverhill”, so it certainly isn’t drawing on an unrepresentative sample.
B
fails to consider whether any residents of Groverhill visit physicians who are not located in Groverhill
More consultations occurring elsewhere would make the apparent discrepancy even larger. The flaw is failing to consider that this gap could be naturally explained by some patients visiting the doctor more than once.
C
overlooks the possibility that residents of Groverhill visited their physicians more than once during the year for the same condition
This describes the argument’s assumption. If any patients got more than one consultation, then the number of consultations would naturally be larger than the number of distinct patients.
D
fails to provide any evidence to support the claim that the residents of Groverhill have an unusually high occurrence of severe headaches
The author never claims that Groverhill residents have a higher rate of severe headaches, so there’s no need to provide evidence for it.
E
takes for granted that every resident of Groverhill who suffers from severe headaches would consult a physician about this condition
Whether or not there are people who won’t consult a doctor is irrelevant. The argument only makes a claim about patients who did consult a doctor.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply