PrepTest 158

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
The consumer advocate notes that mixing drugs with other stuff can be harmful (that's true ... or so we've heard ... ). For instance, fruit juice makes aspirin ineffective (that's also true — we looked it up). So, the government should require drug companies to list "all known drug-related interactions" of this sort.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
   1. Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
      1. Shows possible alternate cause
      2. Shows cause without effect
      3. Shows effect without cause
      4. Shows the cause and effect are reversed
   2. If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation:
Not even 10 questions into this LR section, and we get a second Weaken question about medication. And this is also the second question with a "should" conclusion. If you haven't yet recognized that the LSAT repeatedly recycles the same few ideas, we don't know what to tell you.

Anyway, just as we did on Question 2 of this section, we should focus on this "should" conclusion, otherwise known as a "prescriptive" conclusion. These prescriptive conclusions are inherently comparative. Asserting that we "should" do something implies that the pros of doing that thing outweigh the cons.

This consumer advocate says the government "should" make drug companies list all the known drug-related interactions, like the fruit juice/aspirin interaction mentioned in the premise. The author assumes that the benefits of this mandate outweigh the drawbacks. The consumer advocate notes an advantage of this mandate — even minor interactions can be harmful. But the consumer advocate never considers whether there are any drawbacks to such a sweeping mandate or if those drawbacks might outweigh the benefits. Let's look for an answer choice that exploits this flaw by pointing to a significant drawback of making drug companies list "all known drug-related interactions."

Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice points to a significant downside of requiring drug companies to list "all known drug-related interactions." If every prescription comes with a tome of potential, minor interactions, then consumers may disregard all the warnings, and not pay attention to or heed warnings about potentially catastrophic interactions. So this answer choice weakens the argument by providing a reason why companies shouldn't notify consumers of all known interactions.

Key Takeaway:
Logical Reasoning tests your ability to recognize and address argumentative patterns. Prescriptive conclusions abound on the LSAT. Regardless of the question type, your ability to identify prescriptive conclusions, understand why they're flawed, and predict what could strengthen and weaken them is instrumental to your LR success.

This doesn't provide a reason why companies shouldn't notify consumers of all known drug-related interactions. If many drugs have fewer known interactions, then that's no problem. Companies will just have to provide a shorter list of interactions to the consumer. If anything, this may add a reason why companies should notify consumers of all known interactions — a shorter list would probably be cheaper to produce for the company and less overwhelming for the consumer. At any rate, this answer choice does not present a downside to the consumer advocate's recommendation, so it is incorrect.

This strengthens the argument by eliminating a potential drawback of the consumer advocate's mandate. This requirement may make drugs even more expensive, maybe even inaccessible to those who need the drugs. But if the mandate leads to just a negligible cost increase, as this answer choice states, then the consumer advocate's conclusion is more persuasive.

Like (B), this answer just shows that, for many drugs, the list of known interactions isn't extensive. But that's OK. That doesn't provide a reason why drug companies shouldn't notify consumers of all the interactions they know about. If anything, this may explain why companies should inform consumers of all known interactions — a shorter list would likely be less costly for the company and easier to read and follow for the consumer.

This answer choice provides a reason why drug companies should notify consumers of all known interactions: pharmacists can point consumers to — and perhaps better understand — the warnings. This may strengthen the argument by eliminating a drawback of the consumer advocate's position, so this answer choice should be eliminated.