PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 20
Consumer advocate: The introduction of a new drug(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AThe social impact(16 more words not shown)
- BThe social impact(11 more words not shown)
- CThe economic success(14 more words not shown)
- DThe new antihistamine(11 more words not shown)
- EThe new antihistamine(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if this antihistamine is the unusual case? We might understand the social effects of the other drugs much better.
The advocate's rule says we should understand a new drug's social impact before bringing it to market. The antihistamine apparently failed that test. I can see a criticism of introducing this particular drug, but the conclusion recommends slowing the introduction of new drugs more generally. One poorly understood example doesn't yet tell us how the others compare.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen that broader recommendation, I'd look for evidence that the antihistamine is representative of the drugs now being tested. If poor understanding is a widespread problem, the general response makes more sense. If it is limited to this one drug, the example gives us much less reason to slow the whole process.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This goes beyond saying the antihistamine is representative: its social impact is actually much better understood than that of most drugs being tested. Yet even its impact is far from clear. That gives us reason to think the understanding of most upcoming drugs is inadequate too.
The advocate's standard now bears on a broad group, not just the one marketed example. A therefore supports a general reduction in the pace of introduction. It doesn't require a permanent ban on every drug; the recommendation concerns slowing the process while the necessary understanding is lacking.
- B
This gives some support for caution about particular drugs. But 'some' could describe a small portion of those being tested. We might address those cases without slowing introductions generally. A connects the concern to most drugs, so it gives much stronger support to the breadth of the conclusion.
- C
Commercial success doesn't tell us whether these drugs meet the advocate's standard for understanding social impact. A drug could sell well while that impact remained poorly understood. The stated relationship with profits doesn't establish how widespread the relevant problem is among drugs now being tested.
- D
Similar chemistry doesn't establish how well the drugs' social effects are understood. Researchers could have studied similar drugs to very different degrees. The argument's concern is the state of our understanding, so D needs an additional connection before it supports a general delay.
- E
This says approval of the antihistamine requires approval of most other drugs. It doesn't say that rejecting the antihistamine requires rejecting them. They could meet the relevant standard while this drug failed it.
We cannot start with the reason this antihistamine shouldn't have been marketed and use E to conclude the others shouldn't be marketed either. E leaves their social impact and our understanding of it unresolved, which is what A addresses.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.