Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 2 · Question 3

Incorrect. If there's another option for Medication M, then the conclusion would be weakened.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Unpleasant taste → Tablet OR Capsule OR Soft-gel
M: Can't be a tablet
M's company: Can't make Soft-gel and won't contract manufacture out
Therefore: M will likely be made as a capsule

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes the "only" three potential forms that unpleasant-tasting medicine can generally take. From there, it applies this to a specific medication, ruling out two and concluding that the third option—capsule form—will be how it's likely produced. Arguments that proceed by ruling out alternatives generally are flawed in that they fail to establish a list of all alternatives, or they don't successfully rule out certain possibilities. However, in this case, neither of those things happen. It does establish the list is exhaustive ("only in . . . ", though see note at end), and it does effectively rule two out ("cannot tolerate"; "manufactures all").

So while the argument doesn't mess up it's elimination of alternatives, it does make a critical error related to another common feature we've seen on the LSAT—the conditional rule. Here, the argument fails to establish that medication M is in the category that the rule applies to! The sufficient condition of that first rule is that the medication has an unpleasant taste, and while M is a waxy substance, that's not the same as having an unpleasant taste. The correct answer, therefore, should establish that medication M has an unpleasant taste.

Note that the opening statement says that unpleasant tasting medications are "generally" produced in only three forms. That's not purely conditional, so the argument hasn't really established that the list of three forms in the stimulus is exhaustive. However, the conclusion matches that strength ("most likely"), so it's not really an issue here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that medication M will likely be produced in a tablet, capsule, or soft-gel form—it establishes M meets the criteria for that rule. As such, it strengthens (if not validates) the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that proceed by eliminating alternatives are generally flawed in one of two ways—either they fail to establish that the list of alternatives is complete, or they fail to fully eliminate at least one of the alternatives to the one in the conclusion. That didn't happen here!

Arguments that apply a conditional to a specific case are often flawed because they fail to establish that the specific case triggers the sufficient condition—in other words, they fail to establish that the conditional applies in the given case. That does happen here!

Incorrect. Since the argument rules out the alternatives as possibilities for M, it doesn't matter if certain other medications have multiple forms.

Incorrect. First, soft-gel as an option is ruled out for M. Second, ignoring that, bringing up that a category medication M falls into is generally manufactured in a form different than the conclusion would, if anything, weaken the argument.

Incorrect. The relative unpleasantness of taste between the three potential forms that unpleasant medication takes is a comparison out of scope of the argument. The argument is based on ruling out the two alternatives, not establishing that the concluded form is best, so this answer doesn't align with the reasoning.