QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
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 stimulus shows a competing conclusion “doctors don’t prescribe herbs because they don’t like them.” The author then argues against this competing conclusion by giving another reason why doctors don’t prescribe herbs.
- CORRECT. The argument disagrees with the claim that doctors don’t think herbs are effective. It says that the regulatory process is to blame instead.
- To do this the stimulus would have had to examine what doctors thought of herbs. But the stimulus didn’t investigate that.
- The reasoning for the claim that doctors don’t like herbs is not mentioned. The argument merely presents the conclusion, then gives another explanation.
- The stimulus definitely didn’t do that. There are many, many possible reasons why doctors might not prescribe herbs.
- The stimulus is disagreeing with a theory rather than testing it scientifically.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly