PrepTest 139, Section 4, Question 8
To qualify as a medical specialist, one must(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APeople who are(22 more words not shown)
- BOnly the most(18 more words not shown)
- CNo one incompetent(12 more words not shown)
- DUsually, six to(23 more words not shown)
- EUsually, six to(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Completing the requirements and being competent aren't automatically the same thing.
The passage describes a long route: usually university, medical school, and residency, followed by a required evaluation program. That's a lot of work. But does the process actually make sure someone can practice the specialty? What if a person cheats through the requirements? What if an evaluation is difficult but tests the wrong skills? An exam like the LSAT could be challenging without showing that someone can practice medicine.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion rules out those possibilities: anyone who qualifies as a recognized specialist is competent. We're asked for an assumption that this claim needs. The process must keep incompetent people from getting through; completing the requirements cannot leave us with a recognized specialist who still lacks the relevant ability.
Working the answers
- A
Motivation is different from competence. Someone could be unenthusiastic and still know how to do the work. Someone else could be highly motivated and still do it badly. The argument needs the qualification process to establish ability, not to select only people with a certain level of drive.
- B
Being among the most talented people isn't required. An ordinary person could learn enough to become competent. And the passage doesn't establish that exceptional talent by itself guarantees competence in the specialty. B adds a selection claim the conclusion doesn't need.
- CCorrect
The required evaluation program does not let an incompetent practitioner complete it. This supplies the protection the author relies on: the final evaluation keeps someone from reaching recognized specialist status without the ability to practice that specialty. If incompetent people could complete the evaluation and qualify, the argument's assurance about everyone who qualifies would break down.
- D
The argument doesn't need the six to ten years of training itself to be what produces competence. Perhaps that training leaves many people unprepared, but preparation for the final evaluation develops the missing skills, and the evaluation screens out anyone still unable to practice.
Also, “usually” would leave exceptions even if we treated the training as the explanation. The conclusion covers anyone who qualifies. But the main reason D isn't required is that it assigns competence to a particular part of the process when the argument only needs competent people at the end.
- E
This says people generally need that amount of training to become competent. The argument concerns whether those who complete the qualification process are competent, not whether there are faster ways to acquire the ability. Someone might learn the necessary skills in three years and then complete additional requirements. That possibility doesn't undermine the conclusion.
More Logical Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.