PrepTest 139, Section 1, Question 20
Medical reporter: Studies have consistently found that taking(53 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the doctor's(13 more words not shown)
- AIt takes for(20 more words not shown)
- BIt overlooks the(29 more words not shown)
- CIt overlooks the(26 more words not shown)
- DIt fails to(20 more words not shown)
- EIt fails to(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“One of the most common diseases” doesn't mean “a disease most people are likely to get.”
Imagine a disease threatens 10 percent of a country's people and every other individual disease threatens an even smaller share. It could rank among the most common diseases without putting a majority at significant risk. Helping with that disease would not automatically mean helping most people.
What we’re looking for
The reporter gives us a benefit of aspirin for heart disease. I'd also wonder about possible downsides before drawing a conclusion about overall health. But the clearest gap here comes from the population: how many people have enough risk of heart disease for that benefit to apply? The flaw answer should identify the jump from the disease's ranking to a claim about most people in industrialized nations.
Working the answers
- A
The passage already says aspirin helps prevent or reduce the severity of heart disease. The reporter doesn't infer prevention merely from a finding about reduced severity. Both possibilities appear in the stated evidence, so A doesn't describe the reasoning used to reach the conclusion.
- BCorrect
A disease can be among a nation's most common while most people aren't in significant danger of developing it. In that case, a benefit for people vulnerable to that disease doesn't establish that most people would be healthier taking the medication. B identifies the unsupported move from relative frequency of a disease to the number of people who stand to benefit.
- C
A treatment can improve someone's health by helping with one disease even if it does nothing for other diseases. The reporter doesn't need aspirin to treat every common illness. What is missing is support for the claim about most people benefiting from this particular effect.
- D
Something can help without being the single most effective option. The conclusion says people would be in better health, not that aspirin is the best available measure. Showing that another measure works better wouldn't by itself show aspirin offers no benefit.
- E
The conclusion concerns industrialized nations. If the studies were conducted only in those nations, that would not create the geographical mismatch E suggests. We aren't told the studies' actual locations, but limiting them in this way wouldn't undermine a conclusion already limited to that same category of nations.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.