Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument is only about the effect of Magno-Blanket on dogs, relying on similarities between humans and dogs, so other animals are out of scope.

Incorrect. Without knowing how intensifying nerve cell transmissions influences the experience of pain, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The number of available treatments for an illness doesn't speak to whether a certain proposed treatment will be effective (though it may impact an argument about whether it should be tried).

Incorrect. The stimulus already accepts that arthritic pain isn't alleviated in all patients, but it does in a solid majority, so who falls into the minority that doesn't experience the pain doesn't influence the argument without relating that group to all or almost all dogs.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Study: 76% of people who received magnet treatment reported less joint pain.Dogs and humans are relevantly similar, and Magno-Blanket mimics the magnets in the study, so Magno-Blanket will probably relieve dog arthritis pain.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is causal, treating magnets as a cure for arthritis pain in dogs. That's based on a correlation and a comparison. The correlation is the study itself—magnets and pain reduction were correlated. Since the argument does shift between a correlation and causation, the usual strengtheners apply:

(1) Eliminate an alternative cause
(2) Shows other examples of cause and effect correlated
(3) Show examples of the effect missing when the cause is missing

That last one is commonly done in studies by including a placebo, so we can look for that answer.

As to the comparison, there are actually two: between dogs and humans; and between the magnets in the study and the magnets in Magno-Blanket. Dogs and humans are established to be physiologically similar, so it's unlikely that a correct answer will bring up more similarities (or rule out a dissimilarity). Also, the magnets in the study are said to be as close to dog joints as the magnets in the study were to human joints, but other relevant similarities (e.g., the strength of the magnets) could strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer strengthens the study by creating a control group—by establishing a group without the supposed cause (magnets) and seeing that they didn't experience the effect, the causal relationship is strengthened.

Key Takeaway:
There are many LSAT questions that feature studies. By analyzing them as a set, you can start to see the common elements in studies that feature in answer choices. Here, knowing that placebos are common in medical studies, we were able to anticipate the correct answer.