Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 11

Incorrect. The opposing point accepts the medical ineffectiveness as the explanation for why doctors don't prescribe herbs, but the author pivots away from that to another explanation.

Incorrect. The stimulus never discusses "proper" use as a drug so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point: Physicians don't prescribe herbs because they're not effective.

Author: It's really expensive to get a drug approved to be sold, which is a requirement for selling it. Herbs can't be patented, and only someone with a patent can make money off of medicines. So doctors can't recommend herbs as medicines.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently bring up new concepts in the conclusion, and the correct answer connects that new concept to something from the premises.

Here, the conclusion is about something doctors can't do—recommend herbs as medicines. The opposing point gives us some insight into another explanation for why they don't do so—the herbs are ineffective. However, the author pivots away from this and reaches a conclusion that they can't do this. She never discusses what doctors can and can't do, though, so we need an answer that establishes something that they can't do.

According to the conclusion, what they can't do is recommend herbs as medicines, and the stimulus does discuss the medicinal use of herbs. We know that they can't be patented, and so no one can make money off of them. And getting regulatory—agency approval for selling something as a drug is very expensive. So we can infer, from the premises, that no one has received approval to sell an herb as a medicine, and thus herbs can't be offered for sale as medicines.

So we need to connect what we just inferred about herbs to the conclusion that they can't be recommended by doctors. As such, the argument is assuming:
If something can't be offered for sale as a medication, then doctors can't recommend it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the premises to the conclusion's judgment. Translating this to a more straight—forward conditional (treating "unless" as "if not") this answer states: If an herb isn't offered for sale as a drug then physicians can't recommend it as a medicine. Since herbs can't be patented and thus profited from to a level that would justify regulatory approval and herbs can't be sold as drugs without it this answer establishes the conclusion. If on the other hand physicians can recommend things as medicines even if they're not sold as drugs then the author's argument has no support making this answer a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
Opposing points can help you solidify your understanding of an argument by knowing what the author is arguing against. Contrast the opposing point to the main point of the argument to highlight what exactly the author is trying to prove.

Incorrect. Other drugs that can't be marketed for other reasons (uncommon disease) are wholly out of scope of the argument.

Incorrect. What would be true in a different world will almost never be a necessary premise and this answer is no exception. Since the conclusion is about what physicians can prescribe how to make the regulatory—agency approval process cheaper is out of scope.