Q20 - Consumer Advocate: The introduction

[backupbecool]

I put B because I was not sure how the rest of the answers even related. I dont understand how the answer is A. Is it because since the introduction should be contingent on having a good understanding of its social impact, and the understanding of this newly marketed antihistamine is not clear, then A would suggest that if this new antihistamine is better understood than others on the market, then obviously then we should be careful in introducing other, even less understood drugs?

Not sure if I just answered my own question...but, I'll submit it anyway.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a good one. I think you've had the opposite reaction that most people have with it. I've taught this one in class for years and always found people willing to make arguments for several of the other answer choices, such as (B) and (E).

Evidence: the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear.

Conclusion: there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being tested.

Let's look at the answer choices...

(A) strengthens the argument. If the new antihistamine is better understood than most new drugs being tested and our understanding of the new antihistamine is poor (from the stimulus), then the conclusion would be supported.
(B) is close but not quite. If it had used the word "most" instead of the word "some" then we could have selected this answer choice.
(C) is irrelevant. The economic success has no bearing on the conclusion.
(D) is irrelevant. The chemical similarity does not imply that our understanding of the social impact of each of those drugs is also similar.
(E) is also really close. Had this answer choice used the word "if" instead of "only if" we could have selected this answer choice. The problem here is that the conditional relationship implied is reversed.

I hope this helps!

[skapur777]

How could E be a possible correct choice, if the word is changed to "if" and not "only if".

Then:

New drugs is released>antihist. is released

Don't you need the assumption from choice A to be in the stimulus for this to work?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

No, you don't need the assumption from answer choice (A). If you take answer choice (E) and substitute the words "only if" with "if", the conditional relationship you wrote out is enough. Remember, this a strengthening question, not an assumption question. So we don't need to prove the conclusion. We simply need to add some support.

(E) most new drugs released ---> antihistamine is released

By contrapositive:

~antihistamine is released ---> ~most new drugs released

We know that the new antihistamine should not be released from the argument and that would support the conclusion that most new drugs should not be released.

Does that answer your question?

[skapur777]

Ooooh okay! Awesome thank you!

[mcrittell]

(A) strengthens the argument. If the new antihistamine is better understood than most new drugs being tested and our understanding of the new antihistamine is poor (from the stimulus), then the conclusion would be supported.

Still not getting how A works.

[timmydoeslsat]

The logical gap in this argument is when the consumer advocate gives us evidence about how the social impact of newly marketed antihistamines is "far from clear" and then says "there should be a reduction in the pace of bringing to the market new drugs that are now being tested.

The core:

Introduction of a new drug into the market should be contingent upon have a good understanding of its social impact.

+

The understanding of the social impact is far from clear concerning newly marketed antihistamines.

(We can infer that this means that we do not have a good understanding of its social impact.)

(This would allow us to conclude that we should not introduce these newly marketed antihistamines, however...)

---> The argument goes way out in left field and tells us about new drugs that are now being tested and that we should reduce the pace of bringing those drugs into the market.

We have no idea how those drugs relate to social impact with the new antihistamines.

I would like for Matt to follow up on my take of the answer choices:

A) This really strengthens our conclusion. This shows that our situation of not knowing the social impact of the new antihistamines can be related to those new drugs due to the fact that we understand the new antihistamines BETTER than the new drugs.

B) We do not know of the relation between the new antihistamines and these new drugs discussed at the end. We basically have "far from clear" vs "poorly understood." We do not have an under why most new drugs are involved. This answer choice simply gives us some.

C) Does nothing to the conclusion of "should generally reduce pace of bringing new drugs into the market"

D) Our contingency is with understanding of social impact, not chemical similarities.

E) New antihist. should be on market ---> Most new drugs being tested should be on market


I would also like clarification from Matt about reading into the conclusion anything about "most new drugs." I don't believe we can infer that.

General reduction in the pace of new drugs does not necessarily mean that most new drugs should not be released.


I did not feel that the word general in this case implied most. I felt it implied something different in this context, such as it meaning that there is no specific drug being reduced..just new ones as a group.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work Tim!

Let me just run through the answers the way I see them...

(A) strengthens the argument as Tim suggested above. If our understanding of the social impact of the new antihistamines is much better understood than that of MOST new drugs being tested, and our understanding of the social impact of the new antihistamines is far from clear, then we should have a general reduction of the pace of bringing to market new drugs being tested.
(B) is too weak. Saying that SOME drugs are poorly understood is too weak to support a "general reduction." (think most statement!)
(C) is irrelevant. We do not care about the economic success of these drugs.
(D) is irrelevant. The chemical similarity does not tell us that they are also similar in our poor understanding of the social impact of these drugs.
(E) rests on a reversal. Had it said "if" instead of "only if" we'd have a contender!

Hope that helps!

[wguwguwgu]

If the question stem would ask for a necessary assumption, would B be a good choice?

Similarly, A would be a sufficient one?

many thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

If the question stem would ask for a necessary assumption, would B be a good choice?

Similarly, A would be a sufficient one?

many thanks!

B would be necessary.

A would not be sufficient. A conclusion of should would really have to have a conditional leading us to the idea of should.

Should is not a factual thing, so we even if we know that this drug is better understood than most others of the new drugs, that does not necessarily mean that we should do something. We would need a principle of sorts to lead us to that conclusion.

[shaynfernandez]

It's strengthen problems like these that is separating me from where I want to be on LR. It was obviouse to me on the first run through that these were my only contender answer choices I ended up choosing B. B stuck out to me because I saw a mismatch between the premises in "not clear" and "good understanding". So I figured that A wouldn't strengthen because we don't know if the newly marketed antihistamine is not up to the "good understanding standard" or if it's just not CLEAR (like exactly) what's its social impact is. So I thought it was very possible that A was a trap answer, being late in the exam. Ex these new drugs we are trying to slow down could all or most fall under the "good understanding" without being as understood as the newly market antihistamine.
I also thought B was the correct answer for the very reason that it didn't say MOST, because strengthen answers don't have to prove or even make the conclusion very likely just tilt the scale more in the likely reason. I feel like if we could consider this a necessary assumption it at least helps and supports the argument. Also I am having a hard time restricting words such as some, not all, most, etc in Strengthen/weakening questions. I was thinking just because B says some it's not that restricted or weak because some could be 1-100% it could also be a relatively high number and a relatively low number, it's an ambiguous word.

I don't know that I did a good job of clarifying what I am missing. I guess I would just like some help in knowing how these modifier words pertain to strengthen and weaken questions and when and when not to choose answers based on leaps between premises. I know that these are different then assumption questions in their modifier reliance and that strengthen weaken questions can often identify the gaps between premises I just don't understand the when and how.

[stjohnmccloskey]

You're going to have to forgive me for this, but I looked at this problem a little differently from most people. I can see now why (A) is correct, but the way I'm looking at it, answer (E) is almost perfect. (what it should say is ALL not MOST). I know that's a little crazy but I decided to formalize my logic and that's the answer I came up with. I'm hoping someone is a super logic geek and can point out my flaw here?? I must have done something wrong but it looks pretty good to me!
I mean I certainly did equivocate on 'most' and 'all' as I said, but I'm not sure, does changing the universal quantifier to an almost-universal quantifier ruin the logic of it?
I also think that if you define new drugs as drugs that are now being tested plus drugs that are now being brought to marketplace (in other words not drugs that do not yet exist or were brought to market in the past) answer E actually makes the argument completely valid?
Again, I'm hoping someone can explain why I'm wrong! I know I'm over thinking it but on the practice I did think a much shorter simpler version of this (it was flawed but the problem i had still exists! especially when the answer explanation said reversed logic!! did I miss something?)

I couldn't figure out how to turn the table into plain text, so I've attached my thoughts as a pdf

[cwolfington]

This question depends on your understanding of the stimulus. The author's assumption is that by reducing the pace of bringing new drugs to the marketplace, we'll get a better understanding of their social impact. With this in mind, answers (A) and (B) are the only contenders.

(B) is too weak, because it says "some", which isn't enough for a "general reduction in the pace"
(A) strengthens the argument because, according to the stimulus, the understanding of the antihistamine's social impact is not sufficient for it's release. And if the new drugs are even "less sufficient", then they should not be released either.

(E) is basically a reversal of (A), because it says that if the antihistamine is released, the new drugs should be released also..but that's the opposite of what the author is saying.

[erikrynko]

LSAT 30. Sec 4. Q 20.

Wow, what an interesting question. Usually I only contribute advice if I believe the Question to be structurally flawed, but this question is interesting enough for me to dedicate time to writing about it.
This is a strengthen question, but more importantly the stem says “most strengthens”. The “most” part of STRENGTHEN question stems is usually taken for granted, because the answer choices usually only have one answer that strengthens the question. This is not the case with this question, which is part of why it is perceived by many as being so difficult.

The argument is:
Premise: The introduction of a new drug should be contingent upon having a good understanding of its social impact.
Premise: The social impact of the new AH is far from clear.
Conclusion: There should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing new drugs that are now being tested to the marketplace.

Prephrasing the argument led me to believe the answer might be something like “new drugs that are now being tested, for which the social impact is not well understood, will be brought to market unless there is a general reduction in the pace of which these drugs are brought to market.” Of course, question creators would change some of the terminology to disguise the answer. Still, I did not incorporate the AH into my prephrasing, partly because it is virtually extraneous information to the conclusion in the stimulus. However, I was on the lookout for how it might fit into creating an answer that would sound similar to my prephrase.

I’ll start by saying that Answers C and D are irrelevant. Some students may be fooled by answer E, so I’ll discuss it briefly.
Answer E states: If most new drugs should be on the market, then the new antihistamine (AH) should be on the market. I’ve read that some students believe that the word “only” affects the answer, so I have rephrased the answer to show that the word “only” has nothing to do with whether the answer strengthens the argument. The fact is, this answer has nothing to do with “pace” of new drugs being released. It doesn’t strengthen the conclusion that suggests that the pace should be slowed.
Another student suggested that E would be correct if instead of “most new drugs”, the answer read “ALL new drugs”. This might would certainly suggest that the new AH should be on the market, (even though it’s contradictory with the premise: contingent upon having a good understanding of its social impact—which would weaken the argument in itself), but the fact remains, that the argument’s conclusion has nothing to do with whether the new AH should be on the market. The conclusion only suggests that the pace of new drugs being brought to market should be slowed.
So yes, Answer E is bordering being irrelevant or weakening the argument.

Now for what makes the question so unique (and great). Answer B is a very attractive answer, and many students choose it. It’s attractive because it DOES “strengthen” the argument. However, it does NOT “most strengthen” the argument. Answer A unequivocally MOST STRENGTHENS the argument (which is usually difficult to prove, so most LSAT questions that ask for Most Strengthen only give one answer choice that even Strengthens the argument).

Answer A:
The social impact of the new AH is much better understood than that of MOST new drugs being tested.

Answer B:
The social impact of SOME of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.

Answer B strengthens the argument because it makes it known that there is at least one drug that is being tested that has a social impact that is poorly understood. Otherwise, ALL of the drugs currently being tested could very well have their social impact completely known. Therefore, the new drugs could be brought to market immediately if their social impact was good, or abandoned if their social impact was bad (or whatever other action is prudent, as the criterion of “having a good understanding of its social impact” has been met). There would be no need to slow the pace of bringing new drugs to market if social impact was the sole criterion to measure whether they should be released, and the social impacts for these drugs were already known. Therefore, the argument is strengthened.
However, Answer A MOST STRENGTHENS the argument.
Answer A suggests that MOST of the new drugs being tested do not rise to the understanding level of the new AH, which is described as “far from clear”. “Far from clear” is definitely not “a good understanding”. Therefore, it can be concluded that social impact of MOST new drugs being tested has not risen to the standard of “a good understanding” and are not ready to be brought to market if the standard in the premise is respected (that the marketing of drugs should be contingent upon having a good understanding of its social impact).
It boils down to this: the term MOST strengthens more than SOME in this case. Answer B states that the social impact of SOME new drugs being tested is poorly understood, and Answer A states that the social impact of MOST new drugs being tested is poorly understood. Although you can’t tell for certain under which scenario there may be more poorly understood new drugs being tested, MOST is definitely stronger language than SOME.

If an argument was structured like this:
Premise: Mary is bringing apple pie to her class for a treat.
Premise: All the students in Mary’s class love apples.
Conclusion: Therefore, all the students in Mary’s class will love Mary’s apple pie.

Which one strengthens the argument more?
1. SOME students in Mary’s class state that pie is their favorite food.
2. MOST students in Mary’s class state that pie is their favorite food.


It’s that simple. MOST is stronger than SOME.

Just as “ALL students in Mary’s class state that pie is their favorite food” would strengthen the argument even more.
Just as “ALL students in Mary’s class state that APPLE pie is their favorite food” would strengthen the argument even more than that.

What we don’t see on the LSAT is judgment calls that are ambiguous like having to select from only these two choices for a MOST STRENGTHEN question:
1. SOME students in Mary’s class state that APPLE pie is their favorite food.
2. MOST students in Mary’s class state that pie is their favorite food.
This would be a judgment call on whether one believes that whether knowing that SOME students like APPLE PIE (a more specific term) is more strengthening to an argument over knowing whether MOST students like PIE (a less specific term). Both strengthen the argument, but it can’t be determined with certainty which strengthens the argument more.

[jones.mchandler]

Are there other examples of questions like this? The flaw is pretty obvious, but the CR is worded in a way that's not typical for this type of flaw. Any other examples would be greatly appreciated. TYIA

[maryadkins]

I don't think it's such uncommon wording in an answer choice, so I don't think I can help without more information of what you're seeking...but unless it's really clear, we also aren't usually able to pull various examples of nuanced question types on forum responses. If you struggled with this one, I'd return to it after a few weeks and try it again. You might be surprised by how little you remember. I always am.

[WaltGrace1983]

What I think this question boils down to is that (B) commits the same type of flaw that the stimulus does: why should we equate the lack of understanding of one drug or, in (B)'s case, some drugs, to most drugs or drugs in general?

The reason why (A) is the correct answer is because it shows something regarding most drugs. This is much stronger and much more strengthening.

In addition, (B) doesn't attack the argument as the stem asks us to do. (A) attacks the argument by showing the specific gap between the premises and the conclusion.

[ellylb]

I found that the validity of A is much easier seen when we rearrange the language but keep the same meaning.

so "The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested"
can be changed to "the understanding of all other new drugs being tested is much less clear than that of the new antihistamine."

Now when we add this premise to the former, the conclusion is strengthened.

"However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. Further, the understanding of all other new drugs being tested is much less clear than that of the new antihistamine, therefore... we should slow the rate of introduction etc etc"

The lsat loves to equivocate with confusing language, but rewording the answer choices sometimes makes things so much clearer