PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 10
The consequences of surgical errors can be devastating,(50 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Athere are general(4 more words not shown)
- Bgeneral surgeons are(8 more words not shown)
- Cthe competence of(10 more words not shown)
- Drisk is not(9 more words not shown)
- Efactors in addition(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about a surgeon who specializes in the particular operation? Knowing that general surgeons are highly competent doesn't establish that everyone outside that group is less competent. A specialist could be another qualified option.
The concern about surgical errors makes sense. I would want someone who knows what they're doing. We might initially wonder whether any procedure is completely free of risk, but the argument doesn't promise that. Its claim is that using anyone other than a general surgeon involves highly undesirable risks.
That's the unsupported step. The premise identifies one group with the required competence; the conclusion treats membership in that group as the only way to get it.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for the overlooked possibility of other doctors who can perform surgery competently. We can accept the general surgeons' expertise while questioning their supposed monopoly on it.
Working the answers
- A
Attacking the competence of some general surgeons doesn't identify the missing alternative. The inference we need to challenge is that anyone outside that group involves highly undesirable risks. Even if some general surgeons were poor choices, we'd still need to ask whether doctors outside the group could be competent. B addresses that question directly.
- BCorrect
There could be other competent surgeons, including specialists qualified for the operation at issue. The passage gives us no basis for excluding them merely because they aren't general surgeons. General-surgeon status is presented as a way to get competence, then wrongly treated as a requirement for it.
- C
A competent doctor needn't guarantee a perfect outcome for competence to matter. The argument doesn't claim that surgery by a general surgeon always succeeds. It claims that choosing someone else introduces highly undesirable risks. Showing that expertise isn't a guarantee doesn't identify another competent option or expose that exclusion.
- D
There may be benefits, costs, and other considerations in deciding whether to have surgery. But the conclusion isn't a complete rule for deciding whether to undergo an operation. It concerns the supposed risks of using someone outside one category of surgeon. Other considerations don't show why that particular restriction is mistaken.
- E
Someone could consider convenience or other factors while still requiring a competent doctor. The argument doesn't say competence is the only consideration in choosing a doctor. Its error is in restricting acceptable competence to general surgeons, which this answer doesn't address.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.