PrepTest 126, Section 4, Question 13
Sherrie: Scientists now agree that nicotine in tobacco(78 more words not shown)
The dialogue above lends the(20 more words not shown)
- AThe manufacture and(9 more words not shown)
- BCoffee and soft(10 more words not shown)
- CAgreement by scientists(13 more words not shown)
- DScientists are not(14 more words not shown)
- EScientists and governments(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Addictive—and therefore restricted? That's the step Sherrie needs to defend. She treats scientific agreement about nicotine's addictiveness as enough, by itself, to justify restrictions on tobacco. But is addiction alone the reason for restricting a product, or would we need to consider other harms too?
Fran brings in coffee and caffeinated soft drinks to test that reasoning. She says they fit the broad description of addictive products, yet their manufacture and sale shouldn't be restricted. If Sherrie's reason applies to those products too, Fran thinks the reason is too broad.
What we’re looking for
Notice what Fran hasn't said: that tobacco should never be restricted. She can reject this particular justification while accepting restrictions for some other reason. The disagreement question should focus on whether addictiveness alone is enough to justify government restrictions, not on an unstated position about every tobacco policy.
Working the answers
- A
Neither speaker gives a policy for all drugs. Sherrie's argument concerns tobacco and its addictiveness; Fran challenges that justification through other addictive products. Expanding the issue to every drug takes us beyond either speaker's stated position.
- B
Fran clearly accepts this statement. But what would Sherrie say when confronted with the coffee example? She might extend her proposed rule to coffee, or she might revise or defend her reasoning another way. She never answers that specific question. We need an established disagreement, not an imagined next exchange.
- CCorrect
Sherrie says the scientists' agreement that nicotine is addictive is enough reason to restrict tobacco. Fran objects that this justification reaches products she thinks shouldn't be restricted. Sherrie's answer is yes: the agreement about addictiveness justifies the restriction. Fran's answer is no: that fact alone isn't enough.
- D
Fran doesn't challenge scientists' ability to identify an addictive substance. She challenges what government policy should follow from that classification. Accepting a scientific description doesn't require accepting every recommendation someone builds on it.
- E
A duty for scientists and governments to cooperate isn't discussed. Sherrie mentions scientific agreement and a governmental duty to restrict tobacco, but that doesn't establish her position on cooperation between the two groups. Fran doesn't take a position on that duty either.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.