LSAT 9 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q25

LR Question 25 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Medical research findings are customarily not made public …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: We must delay access to findings until they’ve been peer reviewed to protect the public.

REASONING: Peer review is the only way to catch errors in research. The public can’t evaluate unreviewed research themselves. So, we must wait for peer review before releasing info to the public.

ANALYSIS: The argument says: peer review is the only way to vet medical findings before the public sees them. But what if peer review could happen outside of medical journals? Then there would be no need to wait for publication.

So, the argument assumes that peer review won’t happen unless the researcher goes through a journal.

___________

1. CORRECT. If research could be peer-reviewed some other way, then the delay caused by waiting for journal publication wouldn’t be necessary. Without this assumption, the whole argument collapses.
   Negation: Medical research findings can be brought to peer review without going through a medical journal.
2. Too strong. This makes a generalization about anyone not on a review panel, which isn’t required. The argument only needs to say that the general public is ill-equipped, not that everyone outside of peer review panels is unqualified.
   Negation: Some people outside of medical review panels do have the knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research findings.
3. This is irrelevant. The argument is about when findings are released to the public, not whether they can access journals.
   Negation: The general public does have access to the medical journals in which research findings are published.
4. Too broad/strong. The argument doesn’t need all medical findings (like, literally any medical research to ever exist) to be peer reviewed. Just that those released to the public should be.
   Negation: Some medical research findings are not subjected to prepublication peer review.
5. This undermines the conclusion that waiting for peer review is protective by challenging the reliability of peer review. Definitely not a necessary assumption.
   Negation: Peer review panels are never subject to political or professional pressures that make their judgments less than impartial.