PrepTest 141, Section 4, Question 3
Moore: Sunscreen lotions, which are designed to block(37 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Moore's argument(11 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(18 more words not shown)
- Bfails to distinguish(22 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(15 more words not shown)
- Drelies on evidence(18 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the possibility(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the people wearing sunscreen spend far more time in the sun?
Think about someone who spends every day at the beach compared with someone who rarely goes outside. The beachgoer might use sunscreen consistently because of all that exposure. If the two people end up with similar cancer rates, that doesn't show the sunscreen failed. Without it, the beachgoer's risk might have been higher still.
Moore compares the outcomes of two groups without showing that they faced similar risks to begin with. Frequent sunscreen use could go along with more sun exposure, or with greater concern about a person's vulnerability. Either possibility gives us a reason to ask what would have happened to the users without sunscreen, rather than treating nonusers as an automatically fair comparison.
What we’re looking for
For this flaw question, I'd look for the overlooked difference between the groups. The same final cancer rate can hide a benefit if the people using the protection started out facing more danger.
Working the answers
- A
Other health benefits wouldn't answer Moore's claim about blocking cancer-causing radiation. A lotion could provide some unrelated benefit while doing a poor job at that particular task. Moore doesn't have to assume away every other benefit to make this argument.
- B
Less severe cancers could be a benefit, but severity is a different measure from whether cancers develop in the first place. B doesn't identify the basic problem with Moore's comparison: the users might have faced much more exposure, so an equal number of cases could actually reflect successful protection. We need to question the inference about preventing cancers, not replace that issue with a comparison of how serious the cases are.
- C
Moore discusses lotions designed to block the radiation. How other lotions perform doesn't establish whether this evidence fairly measures the effectiveness of the lotions under discussion. Switching products leaves the comparison problem untouched.
- D
The evidence isn't impossible to challenge. Further studies could examine the groups, their exposure, and their outcomes. We can even question the comparison using the information already provided. Nothing in Moore's reasoning makes the cancer-rate evidence immune to testing.
- ECorrect
More time in the sun gives the consistent users a greater exposure that could offset the protection they receive. Their cancer rate might have been higher without the sunscreen. The observed equality therefore doesn't establish that the lotions fail to block the radiation effectively.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.