LSAT 33, Logical Reasoning II, Q11

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. 

___________

1. 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.
2. This is irrelevant: herbs are almost never drugs. 
3. CORRECT. The argument is assuming your doctor can only recommend drugs. 
4. This is not necessary since the argument is only about herbs. 
5. 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 here

Try the LSAT Hacks Course

Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly