PrepTest 129

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Vaccines work by introducing a portion of a virus and having the body create antibodies to it. Now that doctors have found the right part of hepatitis E, they can vaccinate people and permanently protect them from the disease.

Answer Anticipation:
DO NOT get all wrapped up in the science of this question. There's a whole lot of information about how vaccines work, but you should not try to unravel that, as that science is not going to be necessary to answer the question. Otherwise, science majors would have a key advantage in this question, and the LSAT doesn't like to give certain students advantages.

So what should we focus on? Well, as in most questions, the conclusion is a great place to start, and the conclusion here features a word that would be very hard to support—"permanent." The stimulus would need to use equally strong language to highlight that the vaccine would have a permanent effect on those who get it. Any argument that calls into question whether the protection provided by this vaccine is permanent will call the doctors' claim into question.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice raises the possibility that immunity isn't permanent. Immunity works, according to the stimulus, by exposing someone to a virus and having them create antibodies. If those who "contract" hepatitis E were previously exposed to the virus before, then exposure doesn't appear to be enough to create permanent immunity. By raising a question as to the permanence of any immunity gained through exposure to the hepatitis E virus, this answer calls the conclusion into question.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument focuses on science, you shouldn't. That science is there to distract and confuse you. Instead, focus on the logic and on the elements in the argument that lend themselves to flaws.

Incorrect. The conclusion is just about immunity to hepatitis E, not all strains, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. While hepatitis B and E may be different enough that what was true of B wouldn't be true of E, if anything, in raising success for another strain of hepatitis, this answer aligns with the doctors' claim.

Incorrect. Without knowing anything else about these people and their immunity to the disease post-exposure, this answer choice doesn't affect the argument.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that exposure to a virus creates immunity. That said, this answer is really too weak to have an impact on most arguments since it just raises a few people who were exposed to a virus and didn't get the disease—they may be outliers.