PrepTest 122

Incorrect. This answer is very tempting, but it falls a little short for a common reason. This answer establishes whether or not it's important to test a product, not how important it is to do the testing. Since the conclusion in the stimulus compares how important it is to test one product over another ("even more important"), the correct answer has to justify that comparison. This answer fails to do so, so it's incorrect.

Incorrect. While it is established that more people regularly use household maintenance products than prescription medicines, that comparison leaves open the possibility that neither is used by a large number, or that both are used by a large number. That means it leaves open the possibility that it's very important to test both household maintenance products and prescription drugs, thus not justifying the conclusion that testing one is more important than the other.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Positive correlation - The number of people who use a product and the number of people at risk from that product (really out on a ledge here . . . )
Comparison - More people use household products than prescription medicines
Conclusion - It's more important to test household products than prescription medicines

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally present a conclusion that makes a judgment, and it bases it on the details raised in the premises. Our task is to find an answer that justifies that judgment based on those details. This is especially true when the conclusion brings up concepts that aren't touched on in the premises.

Here, the conclusion brings up a completely new concept—the relative importance of testing different products. The premises don't talk about testing products, so what do they mention that could serve as the basis for justifying that conclusion?

Since the conclusion says it's more important to test household products than prescription drugs, we should look for a comparison between those two in the premises. And we get one—the former are used regularly by more people than the latter. And another premise ties the number of people regularly using a product to the number of people at risk from that product.

So bringing the premises together and connecting them to the conclusion, we get a fairly specific anticipation:
If more people are at risk from a product, then it's more important to test that product to ensure its safety.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the issues with had with answers (A) and (B) while connecting the premises to the conclusion. It's established that more people regularly use household products than prescription medication, and the first premise allows us to infer that this means more people are at risk from the former. If more people at risk from a product means it's more important to test that product, then the conclusion that it's more important to test household maintenance products than prescription drugs is justified. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Note that there were several answers there that were wrong because they didn't use comparative language in a question where the argument was comparative. This shift between relative and absolute language is a common way for the LSAT to throw you off, so always pay attention to it!

The conclusion compares household products to medicines, not medicines to each other, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer starts by sounding like it justifies the opposite conclusion until about halfway through, when it raises an exception that applies in the case of the stimulus. However, when an exception applies, it doesn't mean the opposite of the baseline rule applies—it just means that the rule doesn't necessarily apply. Saying that you can't win the lottery unless you have a ticket doesn't mean that you will win if you have a ticket; it just means that you might win.