PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 3
Physician: We are constantly bombarded by warnings, based(58 more words not shown)
The statement that people who(24 more words not shown)
- AIt is presented(15 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(21 more words not shown)
- CIt is an(9 more words not shown)
- DIt is an(13 more words not shown)
- EIt is an(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Imagine seeing one alarming food headline after another, each based on a study that hasn't settled the matter. At some point, people might stop taking the warnings seriously. That's the physician's concern: repeated tentative warnings could make a later, well-supported warning easier to ignore.
I'm not automatically sold on announcing only conclusive results. What about transparency? Withholding preliminary information could create a different reason to distrust the medical establishment. We can question the recommendation while still understanding the reason offered for it.
The fire-alarm statement explains that reason. People who repeatedly hear alarms during drills eventually ignore the alarm. The physician wants us to think that repeated health warnings could have a similar effect. It's the boy-who-cried-wolf concern: after enough warnings that don't seem to warrant action, people may tune out when it matters.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what that statement does in the argument. Our prediction is support for the recommendation to announce only conclusive results. It explains why the physician thinks the current approach could backfire.
Working the answers
- A
A fire drill isn't one of the medical warnings discussed in the conclusion. An example of that kind of warning would concern a particular food and an alleged health risk. The physician instead borrows a different situation to help us understand what repeated warnings might do.
- B
The statement has a clear logical role: it supplies a reason for the physician's recommendation. An unrelated comment about a favorite ice-cream flavor would do no work here. The fire-alarm statement does work, and it doesn't accuse the medical establishment of having bad motives.
- CCorrect
“Analogy” gives a more specific name to the supporting reasoning we identified. The physician compares repeated medical warnings with repeated fire alarms. In the fire-drill situation, people eventually stop paying attention; the comparison suggests that the medical establishment risks a similar response. That supports the recommendation to limit announcements to conclusive results.
- D
This correctly calls the statement an analogy, but puts it on the wrong side. The physician offers the fire-drill comparison as a reason to accept the recommendation, not as an objection to it. Sharing one accurate word with C isn't enough.
- E
The comparison doesn't explain how an initial study differs from a definitive study. It concerns how people respond to repeated warnings. The distinction between kinds of studies is already in the argument; the analogy helps explain the proposed policy about announcing results.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.