2990

[djbakal]

(No one with a fatal tumor will not experience a benefit from the new drug.)

this answer contains a double negative. In essence isn't this stating that everyone with a fatal tumor will experience a benefit?

The premise is that most people in the study have fatal tumors, the conclusion is that some people in the study experience a benefit from the drug. How can the assumption be a double negative stating that all people with fatal tumors will experience a benefit? This must be a wrong answer, the premise and the conclusion leave it perfectly possible for there to be people with fatal tumors who experience no benefit whatsoever.

[djbakal]

For further assistance.


P: Most of the patients in the new drug study who are receiving the new drug have fatal tumors.

(A): (Some people with fatal tumors will experience benefits from the new drug.) (apparently wrong)
(A): (No one with a fatal tumor will not experience a benefit from the new drug.) (given as the correct answer)


C: Some of the patients in the new drug study will experience a benefit from the new drug.

[noah]

(No one with a fatal tumor will not experience a benefit from the new drug.)

this answer contains a double negative. In essence isn't this stating that everyone with a fatal tumor will experience a benefit?

Yes, it does. (I can't not hate double negatives.)

The premise is that most people in the study have fatal tumors, the conclusion is that some people in the study experience a benefit from the drug. How can the assumption be a double negative stating that all people with fatal tumors will experience a benefit? This must be a wrong answer, the premise and the conclusion leave it perfectly possible for there to be people with fatal tumors who experience no benefit whatsoever.

One issue I believe you're facing is that you're interpreting "some" to mean "not all" - but on the LSAT, "some" means "1 or more" which actually includes "all"! Ridiculous, I know.

So, the argument is basically this:

Most of the patients in the new drug study who are receiving the new drug have fatal tumors. Everyone who gets the drug will benefit. So, at least one person in the study will benefit.

The wrong answer - Some people with fatal tumors will experience benefits from the new drug - is wrong because we don't know if those some people are the ones in the study; perhaps there are 5 folks outside the study who benefited, and they're the only ones.

Make sense?

There's a big discussion of "some" and "most" in our Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide - check out page 357.

[djbakal]

I absolutely understand why that answer is wrong, i think I did not fully explain my point of view. I feel that both answers are wrong. It is plain to see how your answer can be argued, but it can just as easily be falsified.

We know that most people in the study have fatal tumors, and we conclude that some of the people in the study experience a benefit. This leaves the possibility wide open for everyone with a fatal tumor to die immediately, and those who did not have a fatal tumor to experience a benefit.

In your explanation "Most of the patients in the new drug study who are receiving the new drug have fatal tumors. Everyone who gets the drug will benefit. So, at least one person in the study will benefit." Your assumption has gone further than is reasonable from any of the information and is unnecessary to draw the conclusion(not to mention it differs from the answer given in that you say everyone who gets the drug the answer given merely says everyone with a fatal tumor who also gets the drug). The opposite of the given assumption could be true and yet the conclusion could still remain the same.

Given the rules defined in your arcade game "The assumption (that which is required to logically connect the premise to the conclusion)" neither answer choice can be the correct answer, as neither answer choice is required to logically connect the premise to the conclusion, either answer choice can easily be logically dismissed.

[noah]

Hey - good reading!

You're right, it's not necessary. It's sufficient. We seem to have two sets of rules showing - the main one "Choose the premise, assumption, or conclusion that best completes the argument" and the definition of an assumption "(that which is required to logically connect the premise to the conclusion)" - and we'll need to amend that second one to say "(that which allows the conclusion to be drawn based on the premise)."

Extra point for you on the LSAT...

[rharoon34]

i would like to appreciate you for sharing such a great info with us