PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 12
Tamika: Many people have been duped by the(68 more words not shown)
Tamika's argument proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Ashowing by analogy(18 more words not shown)
- Barguing against a(13 more words not shown)
- Cexplaining the susceptibility(22 more words not shown)
- Darguing that since(16 more words not shown)
- Earguing that an(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A promised quick fix can be appealing, especially when the real problem is difficult. Imagine a product advertised as an effortless way to lose weight. Someone who wants the result but lacks the medical knowledge to assess the claim could easily be fooled.
Tamika accepts that explanation for many ordinary consumers. The puzzle is why medical professionals are also being fooled. They have the medical knowledge the first explanation says is missing.
We might wonder whether every professional knows enough about every specialty. A dentist, for example, needn't be an expert on heart disease. But that would be a possible criticism to explore. This question asks what Tamika's argument does, and Tamika explicitly treats the professionals as having the relevant knowledge.
What we’re looking for
So follow the distinction Tamika actually draws: the two groups show similar behavior, but a feature used to explain the first group's behavior is absent in the second. Tamika concludes that the same explanation cannot account for both. We aren't given the replacement explanation for the professionals.
Working the answers
- A
An analogy would use a relevant similarity to support a comparable conclusion. Tamika emphasizes a difference in knowledge instead. And Tamika isn't trying to establish that medical professionals won't or shouldn't be susceptible; their susceptibility is the fact that needs a different explanation.
- B
Tamika doesn't reject the ordinary-consumer explanation because it fails to cover everyone. That explanation is accepted for people who lack the relevant knowledge. The argument then limits its application: it can't explain the same behavior in a group that has that knowledge.
- C
Tamika does the opposite of casting doubt on the professionals' expertise. Their medical knowledge is treated as established, which is why ignorance cannot explain their susceptibility in the same way. Our possible question about specialties isn't the argument Tamika makes.
- DCorrect
'Disanalogous in important respects' means different in a way that matters to the comparison. The important difference is medical knowledge: ordinary consumers lack it, while the professionals possess it. Both groups fall for fraudulent claims, but Tamika argues that the explanation relying on a lack of knowledge cannot explain both groups' behavior.
- E
Tamika isn't defending one explanation against apparent counterevidence. The argument accepts an explanation for the first group and says the second group requires a different one. It doesn't even propose a specific explanation of why the professionals are being fooled.
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.