LR Drill Set 2, Question 1
Chiropractors may not be fixing partial dislocations as(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AChiropractic, homeopathy, and(7 more words not shown)
- BOne can learn(16 more words not shown)
- CAlternative medical treatments(8 more words not shown)
- DTraditional acupuncture theory(12 more words not shown)
- EAlternative medical treatments(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the explanation is wrong but there's still something useful to learn? That's the possibility running through these examples. A chiropractor might help a patient without fixing the partial dislocation the chiropractor describes. Homeopathy might turn out to involve only a placebo effect, but studying it could still teach us about that effect. Acupuncture might reveal something about nervous-system chemistry even if the account involving energy flow isn't right.
We should keep the modest language. These are possibilities, not proof that all three practices work or that their explanations are false. And “valuable” can mean more than being an effective treatment: an opportunity to study a placebo effect can have research value even if the proposed treatment mechanism is mistaken.
What we’re looking for
For a supported inference, I want that common idea. Rejecting a practitioner's account doesn't automatically eliminate every benefit or opportunity for learning. We don't need to compare the practices with one another or with mainstream medicine to recognize the point.
Working the answers
- A
Nothing establishes equal value. One practice could provide a great deal of useful information while another provided little, and all three examples could still be true. The passage gives possible kinds of value, not a ranking or a claim that their value is the same.
- B
The passage doesn't say we can learn without knowing anything about how a treatment is applied. Understanding what a practitioner actually does might be essential to studying the effects. A mistaken explanation of why something works is different from total ignorance of how the procedure is carried out.
- C
Possible benefits don't establish effectiveness equal to mainstream treatment. We would need information about the mainstream treatments and a way to compare their results. The passage offers neither. It also describes potential research insights, which needn't amount to an effective medical treatment at all.
- D
The passage contrasts insights into nervous-system chemistry with an account involving energy flow. It doesn't tell us what people previously believed about compatibility with Western medicine or revise that comparison. A practice might produce useful findings even if its traditional theory remained incompatible with another theory.
- ECorrect
Each example leaves room for value even when the practitioner's account is not true. That value could be a benefit from spinal manipulation or an opportunity to learn about placebo effects or nervous-system chemistry. E keeps the passage's cautious “could” and captures the shared reasoning without inventing a comparison of effectiveness.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.