Q3 - Physician: We are constantly bombarded by warnings

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: If the medical establishment wants people to pay attention to health warnings, it should announce only conclusive results from definitive studies.

Premises: People constantly subjected to fire drills eventually come to ignore them. We are constantly bombarded by health warnings about food based on initial studies' tentative conclusions.

Answer Anticipation:
The stem asks about the role of the fire drills claim. This is an analogy. The physician thinks that if people eventually ignore fire drills, they'll also eventually ignore health warnings.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is a pretty dense answer. Replace the dense, abstract language of the answer with concrete language from the stimulus! What sort of warning does the argument's conclusion refer to? Health warnings. Is the fire drill an example of a health warning? Nope.

(B) B is accusing the physician of an Ad Hominem argument! This is wrong for so many reasons. There's no Ad Hom attack, and the statement does play a logical role in the argument, because it’s a premise.

(C) Correct! It's an analogy, and it's a premise. Winner winner.

(D) Tempting. D got the "analogy" part right, but the analogy is offered as support for the conclusion, not as an objection to the conclusion. The tricky part here is that conclusion itself feels like an objection: an objection to the practice of releasing health warnings too early and too often. But upon closer inspection, you'll see that the conclusion is actually a recommendation: If you want people to heed the warnings, you should only announce conclusive results from definitive studies.

(E) E also wins points for the inclusion of "analogy," but like D, it describes an analogy used in a different way that what we saw in the argument. This analogy wasn't offered to clarify the distinction between different types of studies.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Analogies are tested pretty frequently on the LSAT. Determine the Function questions, ID the Flaw questions, Strengthen, Weaken, and Procedure questions all deal with analogies from time to time. Understanding the difference between an analogy and an example is frequently important (see answer A). So is understanding how the analogy fits within the broader argument. When you recognize and analogy, don't stop there! Dig a little deeper to ensure you understand how the analogy actually works.

#officialexplanation