PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 9
In a medical study of all of the(51 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Ageneralizes inappropriately from(7 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(13 more words not shown)
- Coverlooks the possibility(17 more words not shown)
- Dfails to provide(19 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why assume that people forgot?
We have 35 people reporting a visit for severe headaches, while the doctors' records show 105 consultations for that condition. Before hearing the conclusion, we might wonder whether people are embarrassed to admit seeking care or are deliberately leaving something out. Forgetfulness isn't the only possible explanation for a mismatch in reports.
We also shouldn't get distracted by whether 35 is a lot of people. That would depend on the town's size. The author isn't claiming that headaches are unusually common; the claim is that many people who saw a doctor don't remember it.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for a possibility the author has overlooked when jumping to that explanation. We need to test what these two numbers actually establish before treating the difference as evidence of faulty memories.
Working the answers
- A
The study covers all residents of Groverhill. It isn't described as a small or unrepresentative sample from which the author generalizes. The problem lies in the comparison and the explanation drawn from it, not in choosing a subset of residents.
- B
Where the physicians work doesn't resolve the central problem. These are records from the same physicians the residents consulted, and the recorded consultations concern Groverhill patients. A doctor being outside town doesn't make 105 consultations equal 105 different people who should have reported visiting.
- CCorrect
Consultations aren't people. What if each of those 35 people had three appointments for severe headaches? Then we would have exactly 105 consultations, and every person could accurately remember and report having consulted a physician.
The visits could even be repeated appointments with the same doctor. We don't need three different physicians per patient. The important point is that one person can contribute several visits to the records, so the larger consultation count doesn't establish that anyone forgot.
- D
The author never claims that Groverhill has an unusually high rate of severe headaches. That was something we might wonder about, but it isn't the conclusion being defended. Failing to support a claim the author doesn't make isn't a flaw in this argument.
- E
The argument doesn't need every headache sufferer to see a doctor. Some people could handle headaches without medical care. The comparison concerns people who did consult physicians and the recorded consultations, so people who never sought care don't explain the supposed memory problem.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.