LSAT 129 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Many doctors cater to patients’ demands that they

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

CONCLUSION: Doctors shouldn’t prescribe antibiotics for colds

REASONING: Antibiotics can’t affect the viruses that cause colds, and antibiotics can have bad side effects.

ANALYSIS: The argument seems pretty solid. It shows that there are zero advantages to using antibiotics for colds, and potential disadvantages.

On the LSAT however, you cannot assume moral principles. While reading this argument, you likely automatically assumed something like this: “We should not do useless, dangerous things.”

On principle questions, the right answer often just explicitly states the conclusion you assumed automatically.

___________

1. CORRECT. This principle matches the situation. We know antibiotics can’t help colds and may hurt patients. So this answer says “Ok, then don’t prescribe antibiotics in those circumstances.”
2. This doesn’t match the circumstances. Antibiotics have no chance of helping. Effectively this principle means “do not prescribe any drug ever.”
   On principle questions you are not looking for an over-broad principle. You’re looking for something that fits the reasoning of the question.
3. This tells us that we should prescribe drugs. We’re looking for a principle that says we should not prescribe drugs.
   Note: This principle looks like: Positive → Prescribe
   Prescribe is the necessary condition. Such a principle can never tell you not to prescribe. Even if a drug has no positive health effects, it might be good to prescribe for another reason (e.g. to make the patient happy)
4. This doesn’t match. With antibiotics, we’re certain there will be no health benefit.
5. This doesn’t match. The stimulus said nothing about what patients claim drugs do. The stimulus said, as an objective fact, that antibiotics don’t help colds.