PrepTest 155, Section 1, Question 12
Physician: Of the health experts who advocate moderate(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AIf a substance(19 more words not shown)
- BAssertions regarding the(13 more words not shown)
- CPhysicians should not(18 more words not shown)
- DEvidence regarding the(21 more words not shown)
- EOne should try(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We can see the pattern without knowing what causes it.
People who drink moderate amounts of red wine have lower rates of heart disease than people who drink moderate amounts of other alcoholic drinks. Perhaps something in red wine explains the difference. But perhaps the groups have different lifestyles or different access to medical care. The statistics alone don't tell us which story is right.
The physician focuses on a narrower problem: proponents haven't identified a biochemical mechanism explaining the apparent benefit. Does that make their evidence inconclusive? It could still turn out that wine contains some beneficial compound researchers haven't identified. Not knowing the mechanism doesn't show the proposed benefit is false.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion is about whether the evidence is conclusive. To reach it from the missing mechanism, the physician needs a rule requiring an accurate account of the mechanism before evidence can count as conclusive. That's the principle I'd predict. Keep our target there; the physician hasn't concluded that anyone should or shouldn't drink wine.
Working the answers
- A
This tells physicians when to recommend moderate consumption. The argument doesn't make a recommendation about drinking; it assesses the strength of the evidence. A also begins by granting health benefits, while our question concerns what makes evidence for those benefits conclusive.
- B
We already have statistical evidence. The physician's objection is that we lack an explanation of the mechanism, not simply that no statistics have been collected. Requiring persuasive statistics doesn't connect that missing explanation to the conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive.
- C
This is tempting because it connects recommendations with conclusive evidence. But the physician hasn't concluded, 'Therefore, don't recommend red wine.' The argument stops at 'Their evidence is inconclusive.' C might matter to a further argument about what physicians should recommend, but it doesn't justify the conclusion actually drawn here.
- DCorrect
For the evidence to be conclusive, an accurate account of the mechanism must back it up. The proponents don't have that account, so under this principle their evidence can't yet be conclusive. D supplies exactly the requirement the physician relies on. It doesn't have to establish that red wine has no benefit; an unresolved explanation can coexist with a real benefit.
- E
This concerns when people should try to discover a mechanism. It says to begin that search only after the benefits have been conclusively demonstrated. The physician is assessing the evidence already available, not deciding the proper order of future research. E doesn't supply the needed rule about what makes that evidence conclusive.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.