QUESTION TEXT: Physician: We are constantly bombarded by warnings,…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: Only conclusive results from definitive studies should be announced.
REASONING: We want people to abide by health warnings. If we’re bombarded by too many warnings, we end up ignoring them.
ANALYSIS: The physician illustrates the consequence of constant warnings by using the analogy of a fire alarm: if we constantly have fire drills, when the alarm finally goes off due to a real fire, we have a false sense of security and might ignore it. The physician is concerned that people will adopt a similar attitude towards medical warnings.
So, fire alarms are an analogy that supports the conclusion.
___________
- A fire drill definitely isn’t an example of a medical warning. It’s an analogy, not an example.
- The stimulus doesn’t mention the medical establishment’s motives.
Example of statement: Doctors are greedy! They only publish to make money. - CORRECT. The example of the fire drill is analogous to the physician’s warning that too many medical warnings would cause people to start ignoring them.
- The analogy is used to support the physician’s argument, not object to the argument’s conclusion. LSAT arguments generally don’t have space for an author to write a whole analogy against their position. (You’d need to have a position, an analogy against it, a rebuttal, and a reaffirmation of the position.)
- E mentions analogy, but it talks about an analogy used in a different way. The stimulus uses this analogy to show the consequences of a certain action, not to differentiate between initial and definitive studies.
And….just think about what this answer is saying!! It is saying “The author mentions fire alarms to distinguish types of scientific studies”. That makes no sense. Fire alarms aren’t studies.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply