PrepTest 130, Section 3, Question 7
Researcher: The use of the newest drug in(37 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Afails to specify(10 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(7 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes that every(9 more words not shown)
- Ddoes not consider(12 more words not shown)
- Edoes not acknowledge(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why stop using the drug? If it is effectively treating the disease, we need a reason strong enough to give up that benefit.
The researcher gives serious reasons to be concerned: total hair loss, debilitating nausea, and intense joint pain. Let's accept that those side effects are severe. I wouldn't want them either. But what happens to the patient without the treatment?
Imagine that the disease is a potentially fatal cancer and the drug can prevent the patient from dying. The side effects would still be awful, yet accepting them could be preferable to leaving the disease untreated.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to identify what's missing from the recommendation. We have the costs of taking the drug, but not the consequences of giving it up. A decision about discontinuing treatment needs that comparison.
Working the answers
- A
The researcher gives concrete examples of the disruption: hair loss, nausea, and joint pain. A more detailed definition of normal functioning wouldn't answer the important question of what the drug prevents. We can understand that the side effects are bad and still doubt the recommendation to stop treatment.
- BCorrect
Not administering the drug could allow the disease to produce something even worse than the listed side effects. If treatment prevents severe illness or death, those benefits might justify substantial discomfort. The researcher cannot settle whether treatment should stop by considering only what happens when patients receive it.
- C
The argument doesn't say that every patient receives the drug. The researcher could be recommending that its use stop among a small subset of patients. The same problem would remain: we would need to know what happens to those patients if treatment is withheld.
- D
The argument doesn't discuss how quickly the drug works, but that omission doesn't identify the central gap. Whether the benefit starts after a day or after a week, we still need to compare the side effects with the benefit of treatment. Timing alone doesn't establish that the researcher has weighed the consequences of stopping.
- E
Side effects could be worse for some patients than for others. But even if every patient had equally severe side effects, the treatment might still be worth using because of what the disease would otherwise do. The crucial missing comparison is between treatment and no treatment, not simply between different patients' reactions.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.