PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 25
McKinley: A double-blind study, in which neither the(96 more words not shown)
Engle's statement indicates that he(8 more words not shown)
- Apresuming that a(11 more words not shown)
- Bdenying that the(4 more words not shown)
- Cpresuming that the(10 more words not shown)
- Dreferring to the(10 more words not shown)
- Ebased on a(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the drug produces an obvious effect, the researchers might figure out who received it. I can see McKinley's concern about keeping the study double-blind: the patients and primary researcher are supposed not to know who gets the drug and who gets the placebo.
I'd want to clarify the timing. Is McKinley concerned that they cannot start without knowing, or that the effects will reveal the assignments as the study proceeds? Either way, the claim is that the visible effects will defeat the intended lack of knowledge.
Engle responds that McKinley is assuming the study's outcome before conducting it. That raises another question. Could some effects already be known? Imagine an identifiable side effect, such as hair loss, even though the drug's intended benefit remains uncertain. That is a hypothetical way the researchers might recognize the drug without knowing whether it treats the condition successfully.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how Engle most likely interprets McKinley. I don't have a neat prediction of the wording, but Engle seems to hear a prediction about the result the study is meant to discover. We need to explain that response, not decide which speaker has established the facts about this drug.
Working the answers
- A
McKinley calls a double-blind study the most effective procedure, not the only effective procedure. More importantly, Engle objects to anticipating the outcome. Whether other testing methods work doesn't explain that objection.
- B
Engle treats McKinley as assuming an outcome, but not as denying that the drug will work. McKinley expects noticeable effects from receiving the drug. Interpreting those remarks as a denial of effectiveness doesn't explain Engle's response.
- C
This goes too far: no effects whatever. McKinley's concern could be that the drug produces a recognizable effect different from whatever the placebo produces. The placebo wouldn't have to do absolutely nothing.
For example, both groups might experience something, while only the drug group shows a distinctive effect. We don't need to assume that this will happen; the possibility shows why Engle's remark doesn't require the sweeping interpretation in C.
- DCorrect
“Therapeutic effects” means the intended treatment benefits. If McKinley means that the drug's successful treatment will reveal who received it, Engle's response makes sense: that assumes the very result the study is supposed to test.
Known side effects are different. A drug might cause recognizable hair loss without successfully treating the condition. Recognizing that side effect wouldn't require knowing the therapeutic outcome in advance. D explains why Engle accuses McKinley of assuming the outcome: Engle reads “effects” as treatment benefits rather than known side effects.
We don't have to establish what McKinley actually intended. The question concerns the interpretation revealed by Engle's reply.
- E
“Efficacious” means effective—successful at producing the intended result. Engle doesn't accuse McKinley of using the wrong standard for when a drug counts as effective. The objection is that McKinley appears to assume the result before the study. D explains that specific misunderstanding; E substitutes a confusion about effectiveness itself.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.