LSAT 102 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 102 - Section 3 - Question 14

June 1998

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:45

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
PT102 S3 Q14
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
1%
149
B
2%
157
C
95%
165
D
1%
159
E
1%
157
126
135
145
 +Easier 147.613 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Herbalist: Many of my customers find that their physical coordination improves after drinking juice containing certain herbs. A few doctors assert that the herbs are potentially harmful, but doctors are always trying to maintain a monopoly over medical therapies. So there is no reason not to try my herb juice.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The herbalist concludes that there’s no reason not to try drinking herb juice, even though some doctors say it might be harmful. According to the herbalist, doctors just want to keep a monopoly on medical treatments, implying that we should ignore them.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter ad hominem flaw. The herbalist attacks the doctors’ character to try to discredit them instead of addressing the actual claim the doctors are making.

A
attempts to force acceptance of a claim by inducing fear of the consequences of rejecting that claim
The herbalist doesn’t bring up any consequences of rejecting the claim that herb juice is safe to drink.
B
bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other
The herbalist never makes any claims that are inconsistent with each other.
C
rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself
The herbalist rejects the doctors’ claim that herb juice may be dangerous by attacking the doctors’ motives, and doesn’t address the possibility of herb juice being dangerous. However, the doctors’ claim might still be accurate regardless of their motives.
D
relies on evidence presented in terms that presuppose the truth of the claim for which the evidence is offered
The herbalist’s evidence, that doctors have ulterior motives, does not presuppose the truth of the conclusion that there’s no reason not to try herb juice.
E
mistakes the observation that one thing happens after another for proof that the second thing is the result of the first
The herbalist isn’t discussing any two events that happen one after the other, nor does the argument propose a causal relationship.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply