PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 2
Eating garlic reduces the levels of cholesterol and(78 more words not shown)
It would be most important(11 more words not shown)
- Awhether the garlic(7 more words not shown)
- Bwhat the diets(8 more words not shown)
- Cwhat effect taking(21 more words not shown)
- Dwhether large amounts(8 more words not shown)
- Ewhether the manufacturer(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The garlic-tablet group improved more. Was the tablet the reason?
The study offers a useful comparison: one group took garlic tablets, and a similar group took medically inactive tablets over the same four months. Cholesterol and triglycerides fell more in the garlic group. That supports investigating an effect from garlic, but we still need to ask what the comparison isolates.
My first concern is the move from garlic tablets to eating garlic more generally. Does the way garlic is consumed change its effect? A concentrated tablet and garlic eaten as part of a meal might not work identically.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what would be most important to find out when evaluating the argument. I'd look for information that tests whether the observed improvement supports the claim about garlic. The consumption-method question is one possibility; we should also be open to another question that tests the study's explanation.
Working the answers
- A
Availability doesn't tell us whether the tablets work. A product could be hard to obtain and still reduce the measured levels, or easy to obtain and have no effect. We aren't evaluating a plan to distribute the tablets to the public.
- BCorrect
What else were the two groups eating? If the garlic-tablet group also changed its diet in a way that lowered cholesterol and triglycerides, that could help explain the larger reductions without crediting the tablets. If the groups followed comparable diets, that alternative would be less of a concern.
This question also captures the possibility that either group was getting garlic through food. For example, if both ate ten units of garlic and the tablet added one, the comparison would be eleven units against ten, not garlic against no garlic. That alone wouldn't disprove an effect from the extra amount, but it would change what the study tests. The diets matter to interpreting the comparison, even though B isn't the exact consumption-method question I first predicted.
- C
The argument relies on results over four months. The treatment could take that long to show its effect. Learning that a shorter period produced little change wouldn't by itself undermine the four-month result. We aren't promised an immediate effect.
- D
Tolerating garlic is different from garlic lowering cholesterol and triglycerides. An unpleasant side effect could matter to a patient's decision without settling whether the proposed reduction occurs. The argument isn't claiming that large amounts are comfortable for every patient.
- E
A manufacturer could advertise an accurate study or an inaccurate one. Whether the company cites it doesn't tell us whether garlic explains the results. We need information about the comparison, not about how the company uses it in marketing.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.