LSAT 30, Logical Reasoning II, Q20, LSATHacks

LR Question 20 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Consumer advocate: The introduction of a new drug into…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: There should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing new drugs that are currently being tested onto the marketplace. 

REASONING: A new drug should only be introduced if the social implications are clear. The social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is unclear. 

ANALYSIS: The argument provides good evidence that antihistamine shouldn’t have been released. But it’s not clear that this affects all drugs. Maybe the release of antihistamine was just a rare mistake. 

We need evidence about drugs in general.

___________

1. CORRECT. If the social impact of the antihistamine is better understood than most drugs then that is very bad. We don’t understand the social impact of the antihistamine very well. Therefore we don’t understand most drugs very well. 
2. “Some” can be a very small number, even 1-2. This doesn’t add much. And maybe we’ll understand the social impact of those drugs by the time testing is done.
3. The stimulus has nothing to do with economic success. Instead it focuses on whether or not we ought to release a drug.
4. It’s possible for two drugs to be chemically similar yet have radically different effects. Maybe we understand the social implications of those other drugs.
5. We already know that the antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market. This doesn’t add anything. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.