PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 4
Statistics indicating a sudden increase in the incidence(42 more words not shown)
The argumentation conforms most closely(7 more words not shown)
- AA better cognizance(15 more words not shown)
- BAttempts to stop(16 more words not shown)
- CProposals for radical(10 more words not shown)
- DStatistical data should(18 more words not shown)
- ERadical solutions to(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Discovering a problem isn't the same as discovering that it just got worse.
Suppose better screening produces a sudden rise in recorded diagnoses of an illness. The illness might not have become more common; we might simply be finding cases that previously went unnoticed. That's a hypothetical example of the author's point about increased awareness and better recording.
Still, an old problem can deserve a response. If the illness was harming people all along, newly noticing it wouldn't make it harmless. So I wouldn't jump from “we are more aware of it” to “we shouldn't do anything.” The author's actual recommendation is more limited: be wary of radical solutions proposed in reaction to new statistics.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which principle best fits that reasoning. I'd look for a rule saying that increased awareness doesn't itself justify a radical response. Keep that tied to the reason the author gives. We aren't looking for just any reason someone might oppose a drastic solution.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
“Cognizance” means awareness. A says that becoming more aware of a problem does not warrant a radical solution. That matches the move from possibly improved detection or recording to caution about drastic proposals based on the new figures.
The key is what the new statistics establish. They could reflect a better view of an existing problem rather than a sudden worsening. The author treats that increased awareness as insufficient grounds for the proposed radical response. A captures that principle without requiring us to deny that the problem matters.
- B
This is about determining whether the problem exists at all. The argument accepts that there is a problem and questions what the apparent increase in its incidence means. Finding more cases because we can record them better still involves an existing problem. B doesn't describe the author's reason for caution.
- C
The author warns us about reacting radically to new statistical data. C instead tells us to rely on statistical data alone. That doesn't capture the concern that the figures might reflect changed awareness or measurement rather than changed conditions.
- D
Better recording isn't dishonest manipulation. The statistics could be entirely accurate about the cases now detected. The author doesn't accuse anyone of altering data to promote a solution, so a principle against that misconduct isn't the principle used here.
- E
A radical solution might create problems of its own, but the argument never considers those consequences. Its reasoning concerns the justification supplied by the statistics. E gives a different reason for caution. For this question, a sensible principle still has to match the reason actually offered.
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.