PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 11
Some people claim that the reason herbs are(98 more words not shown)
The argument depends on the(2 more words not shown)
- Athe medical ineffectiveness(13 more words not shown)
- Bthe only time(20 more words not shown)
- Ca licensed physician(18 more words not shown)
- Dsome other substances,(27 more words not shown)
- Ethe cost of(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Recommending an herb isn't obviously the same as selling it as an approved drug.
The opening explanation concerns why physicians don't prescribe herbs: some people blame doubts about effectiveness. I can imagine another reason. Suppose an herb is already available at a grocery store. A physician might suggest it without issuing a prescription. That hypothetical doesn't establish that any particular herb works. It shows why the absence of a prescription needn't settle effectiveness or the possibility of a recommendation.
The author then offers an economic explanation. Approval costs a great deal, only patent holders can expect to recover that cost, and the herbs themselves cannot be patented. I can see why that would discourage someone from paying to obtain approval. But even if we accept the resulting obstacle to selling herbs as drugs, how does that establish that physicians cannot recommend them?
What we’re looking for
That's the missing link for the necessary-assumption question. I'd expect a restriction tying a physician's recommendation to the herb's availability for sale as a drug. Otherwise, the physician could recommend the grocery-store herb despite the economic barrier the author describes.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't need to establish that many herbs are medically ineffective. It offers an economic and regulatory explanation for their absence as drugs. That explanation could be the author's position even if the herbs worked well. A returns to the effectiveness issue without connecting the premises to the conclusion about recommendations.
- B
This concerns when a substance is properly used as a drug. The conclusion concerns what physicians can recommend. A rule requiring a prescription for proper use doesn't say that every medicinal recommendation must involve something sold as a drug. B doesn't supply the missing restriction on recommendations.
- CCorrect
This makes availability for sale as a drug a requirement for a physician to recommend the herb's medicinal use. That is the connection the argument needs between the sales-and-approval discussion and its conclusion.
Without that restriction, an herb could be unavailable as an approved drug and still be something a physician can recommend. The author's economic explanation would then leave the conclusion open. C closes this particular gap; it needn't resolve every question about whether someone might fund approval without expecting a profit.
- D
This introduces other substances and a different obstacle to profitability: illnesses with too few potential customers. The argument about herbs doesn't depend on whether that happens elsewhere. Even if it did, we would still need to connect the herbs' status as drugs with physicians' ability to recommend them.
- E
Lower medical costs would be a possible benefit of faster approval. But the author isn't arguing for faster approval or forecasting the overall cost of care. Nothing about the conclusion requires that particular saving. The missing assumption concerns recommendations, not how much the health system might save.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.