LSAT 109 – Section 3 – Question 12

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:42

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
PT109 S3 Q12
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
82%
168
B
1%
156
C
6%
162
D
6%
159
E
5%
163
140
150
161
+Medium 148.18 +SubsectionMedium

Some people claim that the reason herbs are not prescribed as drugs by licensed physicians is that the medical effectiveness of herbs is seriously in doubt. No drug can be offered for sale, however, unless it has regulatory-agency approval for medicinal use in specific illnesses or conditions. It costs about $200 million to get regulatory-agency approval for a drug, and only the holder of a patent can expect to recover such large expenses. Although methods of extracting particular substances from herbs can be patented, herbs themselves and their medicinal uses cannot be. Therefore, under the current system licensed physicians cannot recommend the medicinal use of herbs.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author looks at the trend of physicians not prescribing herbs and concludes the reason for this is because the current system prevents physicians from recommending the medicinal use of herbs. As evidence, the author states drugs require regulatory-agency approval for medicinal use. Moreover, regulatory-agency approval costs $200 million and only patent holders can expect to recover such large expenses. Herbs themselves and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author questions what others claim as the reason physicians do not prescribe herbs. She does this by providing an alternative explanation for why physicians refrain from prescribing herbs. The medical effectiveness of herbs may not be in serious doubt, but rather the current system does not allow this practice because herbs and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.

A
questioning a claim about why something is the case by supplying an alternative explanation
The claim the author questions is the claim that physicians do not prescribe drugs because their medical effectiveness is in serious doubt. The alternative explanation is physicians cannot prescribe herbs because herbs and their medicinal uses cannot be patented.
B
attacking the validity of the data on which a competing claim is based
The competing claim is not supported by any data in the stimulus. The author does not address any data that would support this claim.
C
revealing an inconsistency in the reasoning used to develop an opposing position
The author does not address the reasoning used by others to reach the opposing position. The author only states the opposing claim as a matter of fact.
D
identifying all plausible explanations for why something is the case and arguing that all but one of them can be eliminated
The author does not identify all plausible explanations. We cannot assume that all plausible explanations have been identified just because the author argues for one she thinks is the most plausible.
E
testing a theory by determining the degree to which a specific situation conforms to the predictions of that theory
The author does not test any theory. The argument the author lays out is stated generally and theoretically.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply