Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:29 am

I'm still having trouble seeing exactly why (A) is right.

The conclusion of the question is this:
"Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

The argument assumes that:

(A) unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur.

I don't understand why (A) must be assumed.

Suppose (A) is false. Then there can be peer reviews of medical research even though the medical research was not brought to review by a medical journal. Perhaps some private company wanted to bring the medical research to peer review.

But the conclusion of the argument (as repeated above) only claims that "waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review" is necessary for protecting the public.

Why does it have to assume the truth of (A)? Why does it matter if the peer review of medical research occurred through the instigation of some other entity (e.g. private company) rather than a medical journal? Why is it necessary that the peer review occurred because of a medical journal?

Perhaps my mind is beginning to fade from too many LR questions! Help?

User avatar
Addicted to LSAT
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:31 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby Addicted to LSAT » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:26 pm

I think you've answered your own question.

The argument has the following premises:
- medical findings not public until published and reviewed
- claimed that this causes delay
- peer review is the only way to prevent harm

Conclusion:
Therefore - must wait for a medical journal to conduct peer review

We know the premises to be true, the conclusion is suspect. The premises tell us we need peer review, the conclusion assumes that this must be conducted by a medical journal. This assumes that someone else couldn't do it.
If A is not assumed, then some private company could do the peer review and the conclusion would fail. So A must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be reached properly.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby 3|ink » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:43 pm

Addicted hit the nail on the head.


@ OP - It sounds like fatigue, bud. Take a full day off and get back on the horse after.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:32 pm

Addicted to LSAT wrote:I think you've answered your own question.

The argument has the following premises:
- medical findings not public until published and reviewed
- claimed that this causes delay
- peer review is the only way to prevent harm

Conclusion:
Therefore - must wait for a medical journal to conduct peer review

We know the premises to be true, the conclusion is suspect. The premises tell us we need peer review, the conclusion assumes that this must be conducted by a medical journal. This assumes that someone else couldn't do it.
If A is not assumed, then some private company could do the peer review and the conclusion would fail. So A must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be reached properly.


What you say would make complete sense if the conclusion said that. (I bolded above what I'm referring to.) But what the conclusion says is:

"Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

Does the statement above claim that the peer review must be conducted by a medical journal? It does say that a medical journal must have published the research findings and that the research findings must have passed peer review, but it doesn't seem to say that a medical journal must have conducted the peer review.

I agree that I do need to take a day off. But I'll do it once I get straight on this! :twisted:

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby AverageTutoring » Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:21 pm

NaturalLawyer wrote:
Addicted to LSAT wrote:I think you've answered your own question.

The argument has the following premises:
- medical findings not public until published and reviewed
- claimed that this causes delay
- peer review is the only way to prevent harm

Conclusion:
Therefore - must wait for a medical journal to conduct peer review

We know the premises to be true, the conclusion is suspect. The premises tell us we need peer review, the conclusion assumes that this must be conducted by a medical journal. This assumes that someone else couldn't do it.
If A is not assumed, then some private company could do the peer review and the conclusion would fail. So A must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be reached properly.


What you say would make complete sense if the conclusion said that. (I bolded above what I'm referring to.) But what the conclusion says is:

"Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

Does the statement above claim that the peer review must be conducted by a medical journal? It does say that a medical journal must have published the research findings and that the research findings must have passed peer review, but it doesn't seem to say that a medical journal must have conducted the peer review.

I agree that I do need to take a day off. But I'll do it once I get straight on this! :twisted:


The argument draws a conclusion on the basis of the given premis. You need to evaluate both the premis and the conclusion in order to deduce what assumption is being made.

The premis states that prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own.

On this basis the argument concludes that waiting until a MEDICAL JOURNAL has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price we must pay.

Note how the arugment concludes that it is "the" price we must pay. If there were other alternatives the argument would have said it is "a" price we pay. In this instance, "the" is equivillent of "the only."

There is a shift between prepublication peer review and medical journals. Like addicted correctly pointed out, we don't know that medical journals are the only way to have research findings subject to peer review. Therefore, the argument is assuming answer choice A.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:03 pm

@ AverageTutoring

It's not clear to me what your distinction between "the" and "a" is supposed to do.

Again, the conclusion says:

"Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

My only question was this: does the statement above imply that a medical journal must have conducted a peer review?

If the conclusion of the argument was:
(Alternative Conclusion): "Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer reviews conducted by a medical journal is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

Then I would agree that one of the assumptions, and therefore the correct answer, would be (A):
"unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur."

But as it is stated, the conclusion doesn't seem to require (A) as an assumption. The conclusion leaves open the possibility that some other private company could have conducted peer reviews.

Is my mistake ultimately due to linguistic confusion? Am I simply reading the conclusion wrong?

Or am I slowly and steadily losing my mind from too much LSAT-study and, as 3link said, need to get many beers and watch a Chuck Norris movie marathon?

(Okay, he didn't say that, but it still sounds good.)

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby AverageTutoring » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:05 pm

NaturalLawyer wrote:@ AverageTutoring

It's not clear to me what your distinction between "the" and "a" is supposed to do.

Again, the conclusion says:

"Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

My only question was this: does the statement above imply that a medical journal must have conducted a peer review?

If the conclusion of the argument was:
(Alternative Conclusion): "Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer reviews conducted by a medical journal is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

Then I would agree that one of the assumptions, and therefore the correct answer, would be (A):
"unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur."

But as it is stated, the conclusion doesn't seem to require (A) as an assumption. The conclusion leaves open the possibility that some other private company could have conducted peer reviews.

Is my mistake ultimately due to linguistic confusion? Am I simply reading the conclusion wrong?

Or am I slowly and steadily losing my mind from too much LSAT-study and, as 3link said, need to get many beers and watch a Chuck Norris movie marathon?

(Okay, he didn't say that, but it still sounds good.)


....a different approach

The argument claims that prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent a certain type of public harm.

We agree on this, yes?

Okay,

It then goes on to conclude that

"...waiting until a medical journal has published the research finding that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research."

I think what your problem is that you dont see how the above says that medical journals must be the ones that facilitate the peer review?

Well, let's consider this. We know that (according to the conclusion) that we must wait until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review.

BUT LOOK AT THE FIRST SENTENCE

It states "Medial research findings....not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them peer reviewed"

HOKEY, let's sync this all up together

The premis says that peer review is the only way to avoid harm. The conclusion says that we must wait for medical journals to publish articles. Medical journals have peer review systems. But if we must wait until medical journals publish/peer review/do whatever it is that they do, it means that other groups do not conduct peer reviews OR ELSE the premis could be satisfied by other people and we would not have to neccessarily wait for medical journals...

I cant explain any further, i will let others take over.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:29 am

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how what you say answers my question. But this may just be due to my own lack.

It would be great if anyone else could give a crack at this. Perhaps Addicted to LSAT or 3Iink would like to chime in again?

Otherwise, sadly, it's time to move on.
:(

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:02 am

I think B, C, D, E are clearly false, but it's easy to understand why A can be confusing.

Negotiation trick - Let's say peer reviews CAN take place outside of the medical journals. Perhaps individual doctors have their buddy scientists/doctors do it for them on their own free time, or maybe the people that created the study have doctors in the hospital peer review it or a private firm does it.

This would damage the stimulus since it would not be true that it is necessary to get a peer review from a pre-publication medical journal panel. Therefore, these medical journal panels are not the ONLY way to prevent erroneous and harmful info from spreading - you can simply get medical professionals in different settings to do it or even get a private firm to do it.

A is basically a paraphrase of "medical journal peer reviews are the only peer reviews available for medical research," which strengthens the conclusion.

It's strange because you're probably thinking "how else would they get a peer review." Apparently LSAC thinks there are other ways.


As for the rest:

B - What? Who cares about people NOT serving on the panels. Out of scope is a dead giveaway on an assumption question that the answer choice is wrong.

C - No, this directly contradicts the stimulus which says the medical journals ARE made available to the public. How else could the journals spread misinformation? Duh.

D - This is tricky. The stimulus says they're CUSTOMARILY - as in most but not necessarily all. Also what if this is false? Well then some studies are not subject to panel reviews, and therefore some bad info might be spreading to the public. BUT, this actually doesn't damage the stimulus since how much if any bad info gets out into the public is never addressed. This answer choice is actually wrong for 2 separate reasons.

E - WTF? this one is clearly wrong and totally out of the ballpark. Impartiality and influence are NEVER discussed or alluded to, and even if this were true it sure as hell would NOT be an assumption.

Let's look at the skeleton of the stimulus:

1) Peer Review is necessary to protect the public from info.
2) Only medical journal peer reviews can protect the public from bad info.

There's a big leap the stimulus makes and creates a gap, since you could weaken it by saying - but they could just have a board of doctors/scientists peer review the study - why is a medical journal peer review necessary to insure the safety of the public? A closes the gap (strengthens it), even though the gap is tiny.

PS: If you can't see why A is right, which answer do you see as the right one? Remember strengthen and assumption questions only have to barely boost the conclusion for it to be correct. It either does or it doesn't. All the wrong answer choices don't come close, whereas A at least helps clear up alternatives that might hinder the conclusion.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:49 am

@ Anaconda

Thanks for that reply.

My problem wasn't that I thought one of (B)-(E) could be the right answer or that one of (B)-(E) was a better answer than (A). I see why (B)-(E) are wrong.

(But thanks for taking the time to explain them!)

What I didn't understand was why (A) was a necessary condition for the conclusion.

I had thought that assumptions were different from premises that only strengthen or justify in that without the assumptions the conclusion must, necessarily, be false.

In other words: the conclusion is true only if the assumption is true.

But my problem was that the conclusion looked like it could be true even if the assumption was false. Perhaps it is true that the (A) would help strengthen the argument of the stimulus in an informal way, but it didn't look to be like (A) must be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

Perhaps I have an incorrect understanding of what an assumption is?!

Can assumption mean something like: a premise that would make the conclusion more likely to be true, even though it is not necessary for the truth of the conclusion?

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:56 am

If A is false then the conclusion is false and the argument is invalid.

You seem to be confusing assumption/necessary assumption questions (which this one is) with justify/sufficient assumption questions. Assumption question answers are basically strengthen questions, they're necessary but not sufficient for the conclusion to occur - the negation test works on them. It's basically an unstated assumption that helps prove the conclusion.

Justify questions contain the word "if" in the question stem, and are usually loose formal logic or pure formal logic questions, whereas assumption questions usually aren't. Without the answer to a justify question, the conclusion simply cannot be inferred from the premises.

Here's an example:

Premise: Michael Jordan has a great jump shot.
Conclusion: Michael Jordan is currently the best basketball in the world.

Necessary Assumption: The argument assumes which of the following - answer: Michael Jordan can still physically play basketball, Michael Jordan is alive, etc.

Sufficient Assumption: The conclusion can be inferred if which of the following is assumed? - answer: The best basketball player in the world must have a great jump shot.

Make sense?

Necessary assumption is, well necessary. It's needed, but just because it's true doesn't mean that it happens. Reggie Miller has a great jump shot, but he's not the best player in the world.

Sufficient assumption - If you don't have a jump shot you cannot be the best basketball player in the world. It's that simple. Dwight Howard might be the best rebounder, scorer, etc, but because he doesn't have a great jump shot, he didn't meet the sufficient requirement and is not the basketball player in the world. But once you get the sufficient assumption, the conclusion immediately follows from the premises + sufficient assumption.

Notice how justify questions are more rooted in formal logic, and assumption questions are basically disguised strengthen questions.

Make sense?

NaturalLawyer wrote:@ Anaconda

Thanks for that reply.

My problem wasn't that I thought one of (B)-(E) could be the right answer or that one of (B)-(E) was a better answer than (A). I see why (B)-(E) are wrong.

(But thanks for taking the time to explain them!)

What I didn't understand was why (A) was a necessary condition for the conclusion.

I had thought that assumptions were different from premises that only strengthen or justify in that without the assumptions the conclusion must, necessarily, be false.

In other words: the conclusion is true only if the assumption is true.

But my problem was that the conclusion looked like it could be true even if the assumption was false. Perhaps it is true that the (A) would help strengthen the argument of the stimulus in an informal way, but it didn't look to be like (A) must be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

Perhaps I have an incorrect understanding of what an assumption is?!

Can assumption mean something like: a premise that would make the conclusion more likely to be true, even though it is not necessary for the truth of the conclusion?

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby AverageTutoring » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:43 am

NaturalLawyer wrote:@ Anaconda

Thanks for that reply.

My problem wasn't that I thought one of (B)-(E) could be the right answer or that one of (B)-(E) was a better answer than (A). I see why (B)-(E) are wrong.

(But thanks for taking the time to explain them!)

What I didn't understand was why (A) was a necessary condition for the conclusion.

I had thought that assumptions were different from premises that only strengthen or justify in that without the assumptions the conclusion must, necessarily, be false.

In other words: the conclusion is true only if the assumption is true.

But my problem was that the conclusion looked like it could be true even if the assumption was false. Perhaps it is true that the (A) would help strengthen the argument of the stimulus in an informal way, but it didn't look to be like (A) must be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

Perhaps I have an incorrect understanding of what an assumption is?!

Can assumption mean something like: a premise that would make the conclusion more likely to be true, even though it is not necessary for the truth of the conclusion?


You, my friend, are a heart attack! lol I can't let this go until it's explained

Let me ask you something: How does the conclusion hold if answer A is NOT TRUE?

In other words, how can we logically conclude that we MUST wait for medical journals if outside groups/individuals can conduct peer reviews? What basis, do we have, to say that we must wait for publication in medical journals?

I think if you try to answer this question, you will see why the answer is correct! In any event, post your answer and I will ask you questions about it and I think this will get us somewhere :D

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:14 am

Yes, it does make sense. I also took the question to be about a necessary assumption, i.e. an assumption that must be true if the conclusion is true. I think this is what I said above, but perhaps I worded things ambiguously. The problem for me was just that I could imagine situations in which the conclusion is true even though the assumption is false.

I'm not sure if you are right that justification questions are more formal whereas assumption questions are more informal. Assumption questions seem to also be about necessity and what must be true, and so doesn't seem to involve the kind of probabilistic thought involved in informal logic. But I don't think much hangs on this for the sake of LSAT.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:32 am

@ Average Tutoring

Yes, I can be quite a pain sometimes! 8)

But thanks for being so patient.

I had thought that necessary assumptions, as Anaconda had said, were premises that must be true if the conclusion is true.

In the LRB it says the following about assumptions: "Because an assumption is an integral component of the author's argument, a piece that must be true in order for the conclusion to be true, assumptions are necessary for the conclusion." (pp.258)

Well imagine that (A) is false. So there are peer reviews conducted all the time not by a medical journal, but by private companies.

The conclusion states that: waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is necessary to protect the public.

Now the question is: Can the conclusion still be true? I would think, yes. It can still be true that unless a medical journal has published research findings that have passed peer review (whoever it was that conducted the peer review), the public will be harmed by the information. So in order to protect the public from harm: (a) a peer review must be conducted (whoever it was that conducted the peer review) and (b) a medical journal must have published the research findings that have passed the peer review. This seems all in accord with the conclusion.


Wanna drink many beers and watch Churck Norris with me?

:)

User avatar
yoni45
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby yoni45 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:49 am

Your interpretation of what an assumption is is completely fine.

I was actually on board with you until re-reading the full argument. I think the issue here is that the argument starts with:

"Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review..."

In other words, the argument establishes up front that such findings are not made public until a medical journal has them reviewed.

So, in order to conclude that it is necessary to wait until a medical journal will publish those findings, then it must be true that peer review will only occur once a medical journal has them reviewed (because as per the above premise, if the medical journal doesn't have them reviewed, then they will not publish them, and if someone else could submit them, then you'd arguably be able to get those from another source).

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby AverageTutoring » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:11 am

NaturalLawyer wrote:@ Average Tutoring

Yes, I can be quite a pain sometimes! 8)

But thanks for being so patient.

I had thought that necessary assumptions, as Anaconda had said, were premises that must be true if the conclusion is true.

In the LRB it says the following about assumptions: "Because an assumption is an integral component of the author's argument, a piece that must be true in order for the conclusion to be true, assumptions are necessary for the conclusion." (pp.258)

Well imagine that (A) is false. So there are peer reviews conducted all the time not by a medical journal, but by private companies.

The conclusion states that: waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is necessary to protect the public.

Now the question is: Can the conclusion still be true? I would think, yes. It can still be true that unless a medical journal has published research findings that have passed peer review (whoever it was that conducted the peer review), the public will be harmed by the information. So in order to protect the public from harm: (a) a peer review must be conducted (whoever it was that conducted the peer review) and (b) a medical journal must have published the research findings that have passed the peer review. This seems all in accord with the conclusion.


Wanna drink many beers and watch Churck Norris with me?

:)


I believe Yoni has given a nice explanation.

But I understand what you're saying now. I will offer a varying point to what Yoni has said.

The point of going through Medical Journals is that false medical research/information will not be made public prior to peer review. This is the only reason that the argument provides as for why Medical Journals are of benefit. There might be other reasons, but we cannot assume other reasons or else the conclusion could follow logically without any argument at all (i.e. we must wait for publication in medical journals because they provide better coffee coasters then any other publication, etc).

If, however, other groups have conducted peer review studies then that information could/would arguably be made public (like Yoni pointed out) which would defeat the only purpose of waiting for publication in medical journals as given in the stimulus. This would mean that the public would not need to wait for publication in medical journals to recieve peer reviewed information.

I actually like the way Yoni put it. If a publication is made public in a medical journal then it was subject to peer review. As a consisquence, if it was not published in a medical journal then it was not subject to peer review by that medical journal. If it was the case that other groups could conduct peer reviews, then the public could obtain the same information from another source; essentially meaning that medical journals are not neccessary. But the conclusion states that they are neccessary! So these things cannot both occur.

NaturalLawyer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby NaturalLawyer » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:41 am

Awesomeness! This has got to be right. :D

The key does lie in that first sentence. I do, however, dislike that they added the word "customarily". Such words cause flashes in my mind and I think it mislead me a bit here.

Anyways, thanks Yoni for that very elegant explanation.

I think one lesson that I will take from this is that it is important also to focus on the premises of the stimulus as well as the conclusion even in assumption questions. I think I've become a bit too lazy and have started only focusing on the conclusion. This general approach, while saving me time, may cause errors especially in more complex questions.

Whew! Too many things...

But I still love the LSAT. For sure the best standardized test ever.

Thanks again guys!
:D

User avatar
Addicted to LSAT
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:31 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby Addicted to LSAT » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:35 am

Wow, you leave your computer for a couple weeks and come back to this! Quite the discussion... glad it got settled, some great explanations there! Thankfully all LSAT questions don't put up this much of a fight.

And yes NaturalLawyer, you've drawn a great point from this, don't ignore the premises!

nonameee
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby nonameee » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:49 am

Can I please ask someone to explain why (B) is wrong?

Here's my reasoning with (B):

What if there were another institution (besides the review panel) that possessed the necessary knowledge to review the findings and that would be much more time efficient? Then the conclusion of the argument that it is necessary to wait for the journal to post the findings reviewed by the panel would be weakened as the second (and arguable better) alternative to review the findings would exist.

Please explain.

KapTeacherBobby
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:15 pm

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby KapTeacherBobby » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:36 am

nonameee wrote:Can I please ask someone to explain why (B) is wrong?

Here's my reasoning with (B):

What if there were another institution (besides the review panel) that possessed the necessary knowledge to review the findings and that would be much more time efficient? Then the conclusion of the argument that it is necessary to wait for the journal to post the findings reviewed by the panel would be weakened as the second (and arguable better) alternative to review the findings would exist.

Please explain.


I can see why you were tempted with (b)!

Now, don't feel so bad because your reasoning was absolutely perfect...except for one little thing: the second to last sentence of the passage. Notice that the last sentence begins with "therefore". So, the last sentence is "thereforing" from the second to last sentence. So what? Well, that makes the second-to-last sentence evidence...and we always take the evidence as true information. That second-to-last sentence tells us that prepublication peer review is the ONLY way to ensure public is not harmed, yada, yada, yada. If that's true (and since it's evidence it is), the objection that there may be another entity arguably better equipped to evaluate research findings is irrelevant or impossible.

Takeaway: In assumption questions, avoid choices whose correctness depends on a contradiction or ignorance of stated evidence.

nonameee
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Preptest #9 Section 2 Question #25 (LR)

Postby nonameee » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:05 am

Bobby, thanks a lot for you reply. It was really helpful, and (B) is crystal clear now.

However, there's still one thing that I still don't quite understand.

From the stimulus we know that (and we must consider the following points as must be true since they are stated premises):

1) Research findings are made public by medical journals (and no other way exists to make them public)
2) Medical journals initiate a peer review
3) Peer review is the only way to protect public

Conclusion:

Therefore, we must wait for journals to publish the findings reviewed by some panel to protect the public from using harmful medication or procedures.

OK.

Now, let's negate (A):

Medical journals will not initiate a medical review by peers, but the review will still take place (perhaps by some commercial organization). But we still have to wait for medical journals to publish the findings because as we know from the first premise it is the only way the public gets to know about the findings. So negating (A) does not weaken the conclusion.

Could you please explain what's wrong this reasoning?

Thank you very much.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests