#5 - Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have
The correct answer is A however it seems that it is strengthening the doctor's argument, not weakening. Please explain how this is the correct choice? Thanks! Anahi
Hi, Anahi! Thanks for your question.
As you point out, since this is a Weaken question, the correct answer choice will undermine the conclusion, while the incorrect answer choices will have no effect on the conclusion or could strengthen it.
Your ask why answer choice (A) is the correct choice, when it seems to strengthen the conclusion. Let's start by looking at the argument.
The conclusion is that advocates of certain herbal remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them. The reasons given for this are: 1) their patients will not be harmed by the herbs; and 2) the patients may be helped by the use of the products.
Your prephrase is that the correct answer choice will provide some reason to think that the herbal remedies should not always be allowed to prescribe them, even if the reasons provided in the stimulus are factually accurate.
Answer choice (A) provides such a reason. The key word in this answer choice is "effective." The impact of this answer choice is that, while the herbal remedies may not directly harm the patients, many practitioners and patients neglect "more effective" conventional remedies in favor of herbal remedies. The concern being that if practitioners are always permitted to prescribe herbal remedies, for which there is little evidence of effectiveness, then they may be more likely to neglect more effective conventional remedies.
The answer is A correct while I did not really find any appealing answer.
I seem to miss specifically "most weaken" questions repeatedly.
I read the LR bible again, and the book does not distinguish "most weaken" from any other "weaken" questions.
Recently, I got "most weaken" question wrong again, and one of powerscore instructors gave me an answer that "most weaken" question allows the answer to be correct only when the answer is the link between premises and conclusion.
I thought this would be the reason why I keep getting "most weaken" questions wrong since I find other weaken questions easy by spotting an answer that attacks the conclusion.
Is there different strategy to attack "most weaken" questions?
Not always. --Law Services doesn't like to be sued, one hears, so that just in case they pick two answers that both weaken, they sometimes say "most weaken" so that they can't be sued by some test taker who screams "Hey! There's more than one right answer!"
Just see which answer most weakens, that's all. If one answer could maybe weaken a tiny little bit, and another would weaken hugely, pick the second one.
As for question 5: answer A is good because even if herbal remedies are harmless, answer A shows that those remedies *displace* better, conventional remedies. Obviously, this could hurt the patient.
Hope this helps,
Thank you for clarifying, David
Why is answer choice C incorrect? Even if the drugs were proven safe in clinical trials, C suggests some patients may still have allergic reactions. Thus, the premise that "patients will not be harmed" is weakened.
Consider all the evidence in the stimulus, Rita, and you'll see that the herbs in question have been proven to be safe. While some folks may have allergic reactions to some medicines, that doesn't mean anyone will have such reactions to these particular safe herbs, does it?,
Even if some folks do have such reactions Answer A is so much more harmful, and we need to pick the best answer of the bunch, the one that weakens the most (as opposed to one that may just weaken some, like C might do). Focus on that comparison between answers, and never forget what the instructions and the question stem tell you to do.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
I have a couple of questions regarding this specific question
For starters, despite the answers given, is it possible that we can attack the question based on the gap between the premises themselves? Specifically.
1) MANY (not all) herbs have been proven safe to consume
2) Since patients will NOT be harmed
Is one way of attacking this question is by stating something along the lines " although many have been proven safe to consume, some may still be unsafe.
It's a good idea to investigate a speaker's usage of "many." This stimulus however does not make the flaw you are seeing.
While it is true, as you point out, that some herbs may still be unsafe for consumers, the speaker's conclusion did not make a claim about the safety of all herbs. Rather, the speaker claimed that advocates of "these herbs" ought to be allowed to prescribe them. The word "these" tells us that the conclusion does not concern herbs that may still pose risks.
I hope this helps! Let us know if you have any further questions