LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#24015
Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR.The correct answer choice is (E)

Again, Lola concludes that we should not allow our eagerness for a specific medical breakthrough to lead to a course of action which might have potentially negative and far-reaching consequences for an entire ecosystem.

Answer Choice (A): In fact, this principle contradicts Lola’s position, as it indicates that endangered plant and animal populations are never a higher priority then people’s well-being.

Answer Choice (B): Lola’s position does not depend upon a consensus between medical researchers and environmentalists and this answer is discredited as a result.

Answer Choice (C): This principle embodies the opposite of Lola’s position. She holds that environmental concerns should play a role in decisions concerning medical research even if human lives are at stake, as they presumably are with regards to anticancer drugs.

Answer Choice (D): As with Answer Choice (C), were Lola’s position to conform to this principle, she would likely agree with Derek, as the anticancer chemical in the Pacific yew could potentially save human lives, which would in turn justify threatening the environment. As we know, however, Lola believes that threatening the environment, even when it might save human lives, may not be justifiable.

Answer Choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. Lola holds that avoiding actions that threaten an entire ecosystem (harvesting the Pacific yew) takes precedence over immediately providing advantage to a restricted group of people (those whose specific cancers might potentially be medically treated by the chemical in the Pacific yew).
 SwanQueen
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: Dec 28, 2019
|
#79548
Administrator wrote:Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR.The correct answer choice is (E)

Again, Lola concludes that we should not allow our eagerness for a specific medical breakthrough to lead to a course of action which might have potentially negative and far-reaching consequences for an entire ecosystem.

Answer Choice (A): In fact, this principle contradicts Lola’s position, as it indicates that endangered plant and animal populations are never a higher priority then people’s well-being.

Answer Choice (B): Lola’s position does not depend upon a consensus between medical researchers and environmentalists and this answer is discredited as a result.

Answer Choice (C): This principle embodies the opposite of Lola’s position. She holds that environmental concerns should play a role in decisions concerning medical research even if human lives are at stake, as they presumably are with regards to anticancer drugs.

Answer Choice (D): As with Answer Choice (C), were Lola’s position to conform to this principle, she would likely agree with Derek, as the anticancer chemical in the Pacific yew could potentially save human lives, which would in turn justify threatening the environment. As we know, however, Lola believes that threatening the environment, even when it might save human lives, may not be justifiable.

Answer Choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. Lola holds that avoiding actions that threaten an entire ecosystem (harvesting the Pacific yew) takes precedence over immediately providing advantage to a restricted group of people (those whose specific cancers might potentially be medically treated by the chemical in the Pacific yew).
Hello! I was just wondering why this is a Strengthen-PR? I thought of it as Parallel-PR

The QSTEM reads: "Lola's position most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

Thank you in advance!
 Jeremy Press
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#80019
Hi SwanQueen,

A Parallel-PR question is one in which you have a scenario (or argument) in the stimulus that utilizes or depicts an underlying principle. Then, in the answer choices, you have a different scenario (or argument), almost always on an entirely different topic, that also utilizes or depicts an underlying principle. The question stem will ask you to identify the answer that utilizes or depicts the same (or the closest matching) principle as the one utilized or depicted in the stimulus.

Since this question has only principles in the answer choices (rather than different topical scenarios or arguments utilizing principles), it won't be a Parallel-PR question.

This stem is labeled a Strengthen-PR, because we're judging the stimulus by its level of conformity (how closely it conforms) to the principle stated in the answer. So we're performing a "bottom-up" (answer choices to stimulus, Family 2) logical operation. It's "bottom-up" because we incorporate the principle into the stimulus and judge the stimulus's level of conformity to that principle. It's not quite your traditional "Strengthen" question, because we're not immediately concerned to determine whether the principle makes the conclusion of the argument more likely (although indirectly the principle in the correct answer will end up doing that). Rather, we're concerned to see that the stimulus "matches" the elements of the principle (that's what the question stem means by "conform").

I hope this helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.