LSAT 141 - Section 4 - Question 06

October 31, 2014

Clinician: Patients with immune system disorders are usually treated with a class of drugs that, unfortunately, increase the patient’s risk of developing osteoporosis, a bone-loss disease. So these patients take another drug that helps to preserve existing bone. Since a drug that enhances the growth of new bone cells has now become available, these patients should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps to preserve existing bone.

Summarize Argument
The clinician concludes that patients with immune system disorders should take a new bone-growth drug in addition their bone-preservation drug. This is because that drug enhances the growth of new bone cells, and patients with immune system disorders are at risk of a bone-loss disease.

Notable Assumptions
The clinician assumes that the two drugs—bone-growth and bone-preservation—are fine to take together. This means she doesn’t believe the two drugs would interfere with one another, or that there would be some health risk to taking them together. She also believes that these patients should take a drug stimulating bone growth simply because they’re at risk of osteoporosis. This means she doesn’t believe that osteoporosis has to have developed for the bone-growth drug to be useful.

A
How large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
We don’t care how large that class of drugs is. We care about what someone taking such drugs should do.
B
Why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
Irrelevant. The clinician’s conclusion is about what should be done to address the risk of osteoporosis, rather than why osteoporosis develops in the first place.
C
Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps to preserve existing bone?
Price is beside the point. The clinician is recommending the best medical course of action to address the risk of osteoporosis.
D
How long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
We’re not interested in the bone-preservation drug. We have no idea what its history would even reveal about its efficacy.
E
To what extent does the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
If the new drug doesn’t retain its efficacy in combination with the other drugs, then there’s no point in patients taking it. On the other hand, if it does retain its efficacy, then the clinician’s argument is strengthened: the drugs don’t have undesired effects in combination.

3 comments

LSAT 141 - Section 4 - Question 07

October 31, 2014

2 comments

LSAT 141 - Section 4 - Question 08

October 31, 2014

Fluoride enters a region’s groundwater when rain dissolves fluoride-bearing minerals in the soil. In a recent study, researchers found that when rainfall, concentrations of fluoride-bearing minerals, and other relevant variables are held constant, fluoride concentrations in groundwater are significantly higher in areas where the groundwater also contains a high concentration of sodium.

Summary
Fluoride enters groundwater when rain dissolves minerals with fluoride in the soil. Researchers found that when all variables are held constant, fluoride concentrations are significantly higher in areas where the groundwater also contains a high concentration of sodium.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
When there is a high concentration of fluoride, there is likely a high concentration of sodium.
Sodium helps dissolve fluoride into groundwater.

A
Fluoride-bearing minerals are not the primary source of fluoride found in groundwater.
The stimulus does not provide alternative sources of fluoride in groundwater
B
Rainfall does not affect fluoride concentrations in groundwater.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus explains that rainfall causes minerals with fluoride to dissolve and enter the groundwater
C
Sodium-bearing minerals dissolve at a faster rate than fluoride-bearing minerals.
There is no information in the stimulus to support this comparative statement. There is no information about the rate at which sodium vs fluoride dissolves
D
Sodium in groundwater increases the rate at which fluoride-bearing minerals dissolve.
The stimulus explains that fluoride concentrations are higher in areas with high sodium concentrations, even when all variables are held constant. This suggests that the sodium could impact the rate at which minerals with fluoride dissolve.
E
Soil that contains high concentrations of sodium-bearing minerals also contains high concentrations of fluoride-bearing minerals.
This has the logic flipped. It is conceivable that high concentrations of fluoride minerals are found in areas with high concentrations of salt, not the other way around.

23 comments

LSAT 141 - Section 4 - Question 09

October 31, 2014

Fraenger’s assertion that the artist Hieronymus Bosch belonged to the Brethren of the Free Spirit, a nonmainstream religious group, is unlikely to be correct. Fraenger’s hypothesis explains much of Bosch’s unusual subject matter. However, there is evidence that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church, and no evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Fraenger asserts that Bosch belonged to the Brethren of the Free Spirit. The author concludes that this is unlikely to be correct. This is based on the fact that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church, and there’s no evidence that he was a member of the Brethren.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is offered to support the conclusion that Bosch probably didn’t belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.

A
It is a premise that, when combined with the other premises, guarantees the falsity of Fraenger’s assertion.
This is too extreme. The premises do not guarantee that Fraenger’s assertion is false.
B
It is used to support the claim that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church.
The referenced text does not support the claim that Bosch was part of a mainstream church. It is used in combination with that claim to support the conclusion that Bosch probably didn’t belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.
C
It is used to dispute Fraenger’s hypothesis by questioning Fraenger’s credibility.
The author doesn’t question Fraenger’s credibility. She questions the support for Fraenger’s assertion.
D
It is intended to cast doubt on Fraenger’s hypothesis by questioning the sufficiency of Fraenger’s evidence.
This accurately describes the role of the claim that there’s no evidence Bosch was a member of the Brethren. By pointing out there’s no evidence, the author questions whether there is enough evidence to support Fraenger’s assertion.
E
It is intended to help show that Bosch’s choice of subject matter remains unexplained.
Although Bosch’s choice of subject matter may be unexplained, the author doesn’t offer the referenced text to help show this. It’s offered to support the claim that Bosch probably didn’t belong to the Brethren of the Free Spirit.

15 comments

LSAT 73 - Section 4 - Question 02

October 31, 2014

1 comment

LSAT 73 - Section 4 - Question 03

October 31, 2014

Cookie Cutters
68.3.01
64.1.13
57.3.18
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24


20 comments

LSAT 73 - Section 4 - Question 04

October 31, 2014

3 comments

LSAT 73 - Section 4 - Question 05

October 31, 2014

2 comments

LSAT 141 - Section 4 - Question 02

October 31, 2014

1 comment

LSAT 141 - Section 4 - Question 03

October 31, 2014

Moore: Sunscreen lotions, which are designed to block skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, do not do so effectively. Many scientific studies have shown that people who have consistently used these lotions develop, on average, as many skin cancers as those who have rarely, if ever, used them.

Summarize Argument

Moore concludes that sunscreens meant to block cancer-causing UV radiation aren't effective. She supports this by pointing out that studies show that people who use these lotions regularly get as many skin cancers as those who rarely use them.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Moore compares two groups: people who use sunscreen regularly and those who use it rarely or never. She concludes that sunscreen is ineffective because both groups get the same amount of skin cancer. However, she assumes the only difference between the groups is sunscreen use, ignoring other potentially relevant factors, like sun exposure or genetic predisposition to skin cancer.

A
takes for granted that there are no other possible health benefits of using sunscreen lotions other than blocking skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation

Moore’s argument is only about whether the sunscreen lotions effectively block cancer-causing UV radiation. Whether they have other health benefits is irrelevant.

B
fails to distinguish between the relative number of cases of skin cancer and the severity of those cases in measuring effectiveness at skin cancer prevention

This is true, but it doesn’t weaken Moore’s argument. She argues that sunscreen doesn’t effectively block UV radiation because sunscreen users get skin cancer just as much as non-users. The severity of those cases is irrelevant.

C
fails to consider the effectiveness of sunscreen lotions that are not specifically designed to block skin-cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation

Moore’s conclusion only addresses sunscreen lotions that are specifically designed to block cancer-causing UV radiation. The effectiveness of any other sunscreen lotions is irrelevant.

D
relies on evidence regarding the probability of people in different groups developing cancer that, in principle, would be impossible to challenge

The evidence that Moore cites may not support her conclusion well, but there’s no reason to believe that it would be impossible to challenge.

E
overlooks the possibility that people who consistently use sunscreen lotions spend more time in the sun, on average, than people who do not

Moore concludes that sunscreen is ineffective because both sunscreen users and non-users get the same amount of skin cancer. She overlooks the possibility that there might be some other relevant difference between these groups, like sunscreen users spending more time in the sun.

Cookie Cutters
68.3.01
64.1.13
57.3.18
55.3.09
39.2.05
25.4.24


24 comments

«‹408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428›»