Summary
The government will not pay for patients to take Antinfia until the manufacturer provides information about the drug’s cost-effectiveness. This information can only be obtained by performing massive clinical trials. The trials cannot be performed until the drug is in widespread circulation, which will happen only if the government pays for Antinfia.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Government pays → provide detailed info → massive clinical trails → widespread circulation → government pays
This chain is circular, and the stimulus says the government is not paying. You can run the contrapositive back and draw any valid inference along the chain. (no widespread circulation, no clinical trials, no detailed info)
This chain is circular, and the stimulus says the government is not paying. You can run the contrapositive back and draw any valid inference along the chain. (no widespread circulation, no clinical trials, no detailed info)
A
The government health service never pays for any medicine unless that medicine has been shown to be cost-effective.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus is purely focused on Antinfia, not “any medicine”
B
Antinfia will never be in widespread circulation.
The stimulus says that the drug will be in wide circulation only if the government pays. The government is refusing to pay. Thus, it will never be in wide circulation.
C
If the government health service does not pay for Antinfia, then many patients will pay for Antinfia themselves.
The stimulus does not give any information about whether patients will pay out of pocket or not. You need to make some assumptions to make this work
D
The government health service should pay for patients to take Antinfia.
The stimulus does not say whether the government should/should not pay for Antinfia. It only explains what barriers the drug is facing to becoming widely available.
E
Antinfia is not cost-effective.
The stimulus does not say whether Antinfia is/is not cost-effective. The stimulus only notes that the drug company cannot yet provide information about its cost-effectiveness.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that a dislike of vegetables is sometimes caused by genetics. This is based on a study involving two large, divers groups of volunteers. Everyone in one group enjoyed eating vegetables, while everyone in the other group disliked vegetables. Everyone in the group that disliked vegetables had the XRV2G gene.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the group that liked vegetables did not all have the XRV2G gene. This is the basis of another assumption that the study revealed a correlation between not liking vegetables and having the gene. Then, the author makes another assumption that the explanation for this correlation is that the gene causes a dislike of vegetables.
A
It presumes that all human traits are genetically determined.
The argument concerns only the human trait of disliking vegetables. The author doesn’t make any assumptions about all other human traits.
B
It overlooks the possibility that the volunteers in one or both of the two groups may not have been representative of the human population as a whole in one or more respects.
The argument doesn’t generalize from the members of the study to the human population generally. The conclusion is just that a dislike of vegetables is sometimes genetically determined; those times could involve just members of the study.
C
It overlooks the possibility that even when one phenomenon always produces another phenomenon, the latter phenomenon may often be present when the former is absent.
The conclusion does not assert that a dislike of vegetables is only caused by genetics. The conclusion is merely asserting that a dislike of vegetables is sometimes caused by genetics. This acknowledges that such dislike can also be caused by other things besides genes.
D
It overlooks the possibility that even if a dislike of vegetables is genetically determined, it may be strongly influenced by genes other than the XRV2G gene.
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument. If dislike of vegetables can also be caused by other genes, that supports the conclusion that a dislike of vegetables is at least sometimes genetically determined.
E
It takes for granted that the volunteers in the group that enjoyed eating vegetables did not also all have the XRV2G gene in common.
This must be assumed, because if it wasn’t true, the conclusion wouldn’t follow from the premises. If the group that liked vegetables also all had the XRV2G gene, then there’s no reason to think from the study that the XRV2G gene plays any role in dislike of vegetables.
Very similar to the weakness in this argument:
LSAT41-S1-Q12
Pankaj: But keep in mind that the ban would apply only to smoking in public places. People could still smoke all they want in private.
Speaker 1 Summary
Ana opposes the proposed smoking ban because she thinks it’s not the government’s business to prevent people from doing stuff that harms only themselves.
Speaker 2 Summary
Pankaj points out that the proposed ban would only apply in situations that expose other people to smoking. Smoking would still be allowed in private. The implicit point is that Ana’s libertarian principle isn’t a good reason for opposing the ban.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. They disagree over whether the proposed smoking ban would prevent people from doing things that harm only themselves. Ana thinks it would. Pankaj thinks it wouldn’t.
A
it is the government’s business to prevent people from harming themselves
Pankaj doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss whether the government should or should not protect people from hurting themselves.
B
government should be restrained by libertarian principles
Pankaj doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss libertarian principles.
C
the proposed smoking ban is intended to prevent harm only to smokers themselves
This is a point of disagreement. Ana believes the ban is intended to prevent harm only to smokers themselves. This is why she opposes the ban. Pankaj disagrees, since it bans smoking in public (where others are present).
D
the proposed ban would prohibit smoking in public places
Ana has no opinion. She believes the ban prevents people from doing things that harm only themselves. But whether this ban applies in public and private or only in private is not clear from her statements.
E
there are cases in which government should attempt to regulate private behavior
Pankaj doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss whether government should ever regulate anything.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that adults can improve their mood by reducing excessive chocolate consumption. This is based on a study that found people who ate the most chocolate were the most likely to feel depressed.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the explanation for the correlation between people who eat the most chocolate and likelihood of depression is that chocolate causes depression. This overlooks alternate explanations. For example, maybe depression causes people to eat chocolate. Or maybe there’s a third factor that tends to lead both to depression and to consuming chocolate.
A
It improperly infers from the fact that a substance causally contributes to a condition that a reduction in the consumption of the substance is likely to eliminate that condition.
The evidence does not establish a causal relationship. So there is no “fact that a substance causally contributes to a condition.”
B
It draws a conclusion about the population as a whole on the basis of a sample that is unlikely to be representative of that population.
We’re told the study is based on a “diverse sample of 1,000 adults.” And the conclusion is about adults. We have no reason to think that the sample is unlikely to representative of adults.
C
It draws a conclusion about a causal relationship between two phenomena from evidence that merely suggests that there is a correlation between those phenomena.
The author concludes that there is a causal relationship between chocolate consumption and mood. But the evidence only presents a potential correlation between chocolate consumption and mood.
D
It confuses a condition that is necessary for establishing the truth of the conclusion with a condition that is sufficient for establishing the truth of the conclusion.
There is nothing presented as necessary for the truth of the conclusion. The finding concerning those who ate the most chocolate being the most likely to feel depressed is not necessary for a causal relationship between chocolate consumption and mood.
E
Its conclusion is worded too vaguely to evaluate the degree to which the premises support the truth of the conclusion.
The conclusion is not too vague to evaluate the level of support provided by the premises. The premises do not guarantee the conclusion, because there are alternate explanations for the correlation between chocolate consumption and depression.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that no contemporary artists’ works enable lots of people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than those people otherwise would be. (In other words, if the contemporary artists’ works never existed, there aren’t a lot of people who would be less fullfilled than they are right now.) This is based on the fact that there are already more great artworks in the world than any one person could appreciate in a lifetime, and those works can satisfy any preference.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility many people might not be able to access as much artwork that is to their taste if certain contemporary artists’ works did not exist. That artwork might exist in the world, but merely being available in the world does not guarantee that everyone will be able to access it.
A
overlooks the possibility that not all contemporary artists believe that their works enable many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could
This isn’t overlooked, because the author states as a premise that “all” contemporary artists believe that their works enable many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that most human beings are inclined to take the time to appreciate many great artworks
The argument concerns the level of aesthetic fulfillment that many people could have if contemporary artists’ works did not exist; whether people actually want to see art is a separate issue.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that the value of an artwork depends on the degree to which human beings appreciate it
The argument doesn’t concern the “value” of an artwork. It’s about whether contemporary artists allow many people to feel more fulfilled than those people otherwise could be. This is a separate issue from the worth or value of an artwork.
D
overlooks the possibility that the work of at least one contemporary artist is appreciated by many people whose access to the great majority of other artworks is severely restricted
This possibility shows that there might be some cont. artist who does bring more aesthetic fulfillment to many people than those people could otherwise have. If that artist weren’t around, many might not have access to art of the particular style/taste that the artist produced.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the number and variety of great artworks already in the world affects the amount of aesthetic fulfillment derivable from any contemporary artwork
The argument doesn’t concern whether existing artwork “affects” (changes) the aesth. fulfillment people get from art. It’s about whether, if certain art didn’t exist, people would be able to replace the fulfillment from that art with existing art. Can people find a substitute?