Q13 - Sherrie: Scientists now agree

[Celeste757]

Hello,

I am very confused by this one. it says the correct answer is C, which is that scientific agreement means that governments should restrict the substance. i see how Sherrie would agree with that (that is basically what she is saying) but I do not see at all why Fran would have a view on that (seems like Fran is talking about how definitions of addiction are broad and includes many items - doesn't mention scientists AT ALL...)

help please!! thank you...

[sbuzzetto10]

Fran's statements lead to the idea that just because something is established as being addictive does not mean it should necessarily be restricted. She points out that Sherrie's evidence that nicotine in tobacco is addictive because those who try to stop suffer withdrawal symptoms being the only reason tobacco should be restricted would lead to governments also restricting use of other things i.e. coffee, soft drinks which contain caffeine and going w/o caffeine can lead to withdrawal symptoms. These things that share this "addictive b/c of withdrawal" quality should not be restricted according to Fran, so just because something is addictive does not alone mean it should be restricted.

Hope that helps!

[Crogati]

Also, just to share a bit of information that helps me with "identify the disagreement" questions.

There are three ways one can disagree with someone else:

1. Disagree with the premise
2. Disagree with the reasoning (such as in this case; Fran disagrees with Sherrie's argument that if a substance qualifies as additive that necessarily means that the government has a duty to restrict it.)
3. Present new information that contradicts the argument

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that "agreement by scientists" sticks out with (C), but that's basically how LSAT is trying to make this less appealing. (Remember, we're looking for the for 'best' answer, not the perfect one).

What I try to with these is, once I've read both people, pick from the 1st person's statements WHICH statement the second person disagreed with.

Here, Fran actually disagrees with Sherrie's 2nd and 3rd statement.

Fran disagrees with "for this reason alone, tobacco should be treated like more dangerous drugs, i.e. govt's should restrict its sale and manufacture"

For WHAT reason alone? The reason is "scientists now agree that nicotine in tobacco is addictive".

Predicting an answer here, we might say "should or shouldn't all addictive substances be treated the same way, including having governmental restriction of the substance's sale and manufacture"?

(A) Neither party comments on "all drugs".

(B) Fran clearly would say "yes" to this, but Sherrie does not have a clear position on it.

(C) Sherrie clearly agrees and there is support that Fran would disagree, since Fran does not think "addictiveness" justifies restrictions in the case of coffee and soft drinks. Fran doesn't directly comment on scientists, but Fran is disagreeing with Sherrie's move from "scientists now agree nicotine is addictive, so THIS REASON ALONE should prompt govt. restriction", so scientific agreement is still within the scope of the conversation being had between the two.

(D) Neither party is discussing who is a proper authority. It can be inferred that Sherrie finds scientists to be a credible authority, but there's definitely no way to infer that Fran finds scientists to be IMPROPER authorities.

(E) The cooperation between scientists and govt. is way outside the scope.

[asafezrati]

(D) Neither party is discussing who is a proper authority. It can be inferred that Sherrie finds scientists to be a credible authority, but there's definitely no way to infer that Fran finds scientists to be IMPROPER authorities.

I understand what you are saying about Fran's position, but I'm trying to understand what can be inferred from the words "by your own admission."

Does the speaker say:
"you concede to something I agree with"
or
"lets suppose that your definition of 'additctive' is correct"
??

[tommywallach]

"By your own admission" means "Even you admit that X is true." Usually people use it when they want to conclude something different from that evidence. It's like, "You don't agree with my conclusion, but even YOU admit that THIS premise is true..."

-t