PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 1
Cox: The consumer council did not provide sufficient(48 more words not shown)
Cox and Crockett disagree over(1 more words not shown)
- ADerma-35 should remain(3 more words not shown)
- Bblemishes are sometimes(3 more words not shown)
- Cthe council based(13 more words not shown)
- Dthe council gave(9 more words not shown)
- Einflammation is a(3 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did the council give a good enough reason? That's the only question Cox answers. Cox says the council failed to justify pulling Derma-35 from the market. We don't get an explanation of why the reason was inadequate, or even a description of the reason. So I can't yet decide whether Cox is right. But I can identify the position: the council hasn't done enough to support its decision.
Crockett says, “I disagree,” and then fills in the background. The council cited blemishes, and Crockett considers blemishes a legitimate health concern. Derma-35 also causes inflammation, but Crockett doesn't think the council needed to cite that additional problem. The blemishes were enough.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, keep the two positions that narrow. Cox says the council's justification wasn't sufficient; Crockett says it was. That's different from disagreeing about whether the product should be sold. Cox could agree that a recall was appropriate while still thinking the council gave a poor explanation for it.
Working the answers
- A
Cox criticizes the justification for the recall, not necessarily the recall itself. Imagine thinking a product should be removed because it causes inflammation, while finding the council's stated reason inadequate. Those positions can go together. We don't know whether Cox wants Derma-35 to remain on the market.
- B
Cox says nothing about what causes blemishes. Crockett mentions both blemishes and inflammation but doesn't say one causes the other. We cannot turn two mentioned side effects into a causal claim that the speakers dispute.
- C
Crockett tells us that the council cited blemishes. Cox doesn't identify the basis for the decision at all. Cox might agree completely about what reason the council gave and object only that the reason wasn't good enough.
- DCorrect
“Adequate” means good enough, which captures the dispute over sufficient justification. Cox says the council did not provide an adequate reason. Crockett says the cited blemishes do justify the recall. We have a clear no from one speaker and a yes from the other.
- E
Cox doesn't discuss inflammation or its seriousness. Crockett's mention of an additional side effect doesn't establish that Cox disputes it. The disagreement concerns the council's justification, not the medical severity of inflammation.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.