QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Doctors can’t recommend herbs because of the regulatory process. [It is not true that doctors don’t recommend herbs because they think they are ineffective.]
REASONING: Herbs are unlikely to be offered for sale as drugs, because they cannot be patented.
ANALYSIS: The argument is assuming that a doctor can’t recommend something unless it is a drug. The argument has made a good case that herbs will rarely be drugs, and that doctors can only prescribe herbs if they are drugs.
But that normally wouldn’t stop a doctor from recommending an herb if they thought it would be useful.
A doctor can recommend exercise or a change in diet, even though those aren’t drugs.
- Actually the argument is arguing against the idea that herbs are ineffective. Its point is that herbs are highly unlikely to go through the regulatory process for drugs.
- This is irrelevant: herbs are almost never drugs.
- CORRECT. The argument is assuming your doctor can only recommend drugs.
- This is not necessary since the argument is only about herbs.
- The argument would be stronger if faster regulatory approval wouldn’t reduce costs. Then herbs would likely still be left out.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly