- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:38 am
#23484
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)
The LSAT writers are really trying to catch us with the question stem's language here. We might see "properly drawn" and decide that we are dealing with a Justify the Conclusion question, but the key language is actually "which one of the following MUST be true." In other words, the correct answer choice is absolutely necessary if we are to have any hope of getting to the conclusion. It is an essential part of the foundation of the argument and it cannot be removed without destroying the possibility of reaching the conclusion. Thus, we have an Assumption question, and the correct answer can be tested using the Assumption Negation Technique. The critical first task will be to identify the conclusion.
The author is saying that Bevex is safe for people because Bevex does not start giving mice cancer until the mice have been given a certain amount, which would be the human equivalent of drinking 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. How terrible is this argument? Let us count the ways.
Firstly, Bevex does not have to be administered only in soft-drink form. Perhaps one-quarter of candy bar sweetened with Bevex would cause cancer. Secondly, Bevex is not necessarily "safe" just because it does not cause cancer. If Bevex is a fast-acting brain poison, cancer is significantly less important. Thirdly, it is within the realm of possibility that someone on Earth once averaged slightly more than a can of soda each hour for a twenty-four hour period. Finally, Bevex might react differently in a human body than in a mouse body. We should always carefully consider the conditions in an experiment before we accept the results.
Hopefully, we can see that this argument is so leaky that it cannot be a Justify the Conclusion question. In fact, we may finish reading the stimulus and expect a Weaken question stem. Instead we encounter an Assumption question stem. Despite the argument's significant flaws, Bevex could be safe for people. Our task is to find an answer choice that must be true in order for the argument to continue to hobble feebly toward the conclusion. We are dealing with a Defender Assumption question because the correct answer choice will ward off an attack that otherwise threatens to put this pathetic argument out of its misery.
Answer choice (A): This is not correct because we do not need this answer choice to be true for the conclusion to be possible. Hopefully, we can toss this aside quickly. The argument is trying to say that no human will get cancer because no human will consume enough Bevex, so the rate at which cancer develops could not matter less. IF Bevex ever causes cancer, THEN it's game over for claims of Bevex's safety.
Answer choice (B): This is not the correct answer. We could imagine that the claims in answer choice B are true, but they have no impact on the subject of the stimulus. Bevex is never mentioned here, so we should not be concerned about such nonspecific claims about SOME substances being carcinogenic for mice in a lab somewhere.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice because the author needs this to be true for the conclusion to survive. We noted that a person drinking 25 cans in a day is a problem for the stimulus. With this answer choice, we remove such a possibility. Using the Assumption Negation Technique, we can see that Bevex cannot be safe if even one person goes over the 25 can limit for a given day.
Answer choice (D): This is not correct. What does weight control through soft drinks have to do with the potential carcinogenic impact of Bevex? Nothing. Not only does this answer choice fail in its attempts to subtly switch from cancer to weight management, but it also fails even to mention Bevex. We should confidently toss this one aside and never look back.
Answer choice (E): The importance of relevant studies is in play here. We know that Bevex has run studies that are relevant to cancer in humans, and certainly whatever is relevant to cancer in humans is relevant to safety in humans. Therefore, we absolutely do not need to consider the existence of other studies, especially because we might already have presumed that someone did a study on the color of Bevex or on the taste of Bevex or on the solubility of Bevex. If we even bothered to use the Assumption Negation Technique, we could quickly see that any additional studies are neutral as long as we have one study relating to safety in people.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)
The LSAT writers are really trying to catch us with the question stem's language here. We might see "properly drawn" and decide that we are dealing with a Justify the Conclusion question, but the key language is actually "which one of the following MUST be true." In other words, the correct answer choice is absolutely necessary if we are to have any hope of getting to the conclusion. It is an essential part of the foundation of the argument and it cannot be removed without destroying the possibility of reaching the conclusion. Thus, we have an Assumption question, and the correct answer can be tested using the Assumption Negation Technique. The critical first task will be to identify the conclusion.
The author is saying that Bevex is safe for people because Bevex does not start giving mice cancer until the mice have been given a certain amount, which would be the human equivalent of drinking 25 cans of Bevex-sweetened soft drinks per day. How terrible is this argument? Let us count the ways.
Firstly, Bevex does not have to be administered only in soft-drink form. Perhaps one-quarter of candy bar sweetened with Bevex would cause cancer. Secondly, Bevex is not necessarily "safe" just because it does not cause cancer. If Bevex is a fast-acting brain poison, cancer is significantly less important. Thirdly, it is within the realm of possibility that someone on Earth once averaged slightly more than a can of soda each hour for a twenty-four hour period. Finally, Bevex might react differently in a human body than in a mouse body. We should always carefully consider the conditions in an experiment before we accept the results.
Hopefully, we can see that this argument is so leaky that it cannot be a Justify the Conclusion question. In fact, we may finish reading the stimulus and expect a Weaken question stem. Instead we encounter an Assumption question stem. Despite the argument's significant flaws, Bevex could be safe for people. Our task is to find an answer choice that must be true in order for the argument to continue to hobble feebly toward the conclusion. We are dealing with a Defender Assumption question because the correct answer choice will ward off an attack that otherwise threatens to put this pathetic argument out of its misery.
Answer choice (A): This is not correct because we do not need this answer choice to be true for the conclusion to be possible. Hopefully, we can toss this aside quickly. The argument is trying to say that no human will get cancer because no human will consume enough Bevex, so the rate at which cancer develops could not matter less. IF Bevex ever causes cancer, THEN it's game over for claims of Bevex's safety.
Answer choice (B): This is not the correct answer. We could imagine that the claims in answer choice B are true, but they have no impact on the subject of the stimulus. Bevex is never mentioned here, so we should not be concerned about such nonspecific claims about SOME substances being carcinogenic for mice in a lab somewhere.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice because the author needs this to be true for the conclusion to survive. We noted that a person drinking 25 cans in a day is a problem for the stimulus. With this answer choice, we remove such a possibility. Using the Assumption Negation Technique, we can see that Bevex cannot be safe if even one person goes over the 25 can limit for a given day.
Answer choice (D): This is not correct. What does weight control through soft drinks have to do with the potential carcinogenic impact of Bevex? Nothing. Not only does this answer choice fail in its attempts to subtly switch from cancer to weight management, but it also fails even to mention Bevex. We should confidently toss this one aside and never look back.
Answer choice (E): The importance of relevant studies is in play here. We know that Bevex has run studies that are relevant to cancer in humans, and certainly whatever is relevant to cancer in humans is relevant to safety in humans. Therefore, we absolutely do not need to consider the existence of other studies, especially because we might already have presumed that someone did a study on the color of Bevex or on the taste of Bevex or on the solubility of Bevex. If we even bothered to use the Assumption Negation Technique, we could quickly see that any additional studies are neutral as long as we have one study relating to safety in people.
X 
Y
