PrepTest 113

[lcid:3550] Prep Test 113 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Because addictive drugs are Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

Everyone accepts - Addictive drugs are physically harmful, so athletes shouldn’t use them
Purists - Nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, so athletes shouldn’t use them
Author - Almost everything in sports is unnatural but not banned, so it would be ridiculous to ban nonaddictive drugs. Also, there are bigger problems in sports.
Conclusion/Recommendation - Athletes should be allowed to use nonaddictive drugs

Answer Anticipation

This stimulus is all over the place! There’s an opening statement that presents a view everyone seems on board with - banning addictive substances. However, there’s then a debate on whether nonaddictive substances should also be banned. Some are for it, but the author is against it.
Why is the author against it? First, because the opposing point’s argument is weak. They say the nonaddictive drugs should be banned because they’re not natural, but there are plenty of unnatural things in sports. But reaching the opposite conclusion just because an opposing view falls short is an absence of evidence flaw, so that’s not a great argument.
Separately, the author believes there are bigger problems in sports to address. Which, again, isn’t a great reason to allow something else to happen. In short, the author’s argument is weak!
With all these views, though, it’s important to understand what we’re trying to weaken. And, at the end of all of this, the author’s main point is the recommendation she makes on nonaddictive substances - they should not be prohibited. And, as noted above, since she doesn’t provide any real reason to keep them legal, we should anticipate going after the conclusion directly. As such, any answer that provides a reason to ban nonaddictive substances will weaken this argument. And since we already have one reason to ban a substance - it’s physically harmful, which the author agrees is sufficient to ban addictive substances - there’s a good chance the correct answer will bring that up as a reason to ban these substances.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Massive doses of aspirin Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This can seem like it’s providing a reason to ban the nonaddictive drugs, thus undermining the conclusion. However, the author brings up running shoes and bodybuilding machines as things that shouldn’t be banned, and they definitely enhance athletic performance. As such, the author has already established that it would be “ridiculous” to ban unnatural things that enhance athletic performance, so this answer doesn’t hurt the argument.
  2. B
    Addictive drugs are just Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Addictive drugs have another reason for being banned - they’re physically harmful. Comparing nonaddictive and addictive drugs could weaken this argument, but it would need to give a reason to ban addictive drugs that the author agrees with - by, for example, noting that large doses of these nonaddictive drugs are just as physically harmful as the addictive ones. This answer doesn’t do that, however, so it doesn’t weaken the argument.
  3. C
    Unnecessary deaths and injuries Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    There being similar dangers in other areas doesn’t make them any less serious in sports, so this answer doesn’t undercut the author’s focus on addressing those issues here.
  4. D
    There would be more Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    If anything, this is an argument in favor of unnatural elements in sports, which aligns with the author’s argument.
  5. E
    Taking massive doses of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    The author is all for banning addictive drugs because they’re physically harmful. If taking massive doses of nonaddictive drugs is just as dangerous, then the author’s own reasoning would commit her to believing that they should be prohibited, as well, thus undermining her conclusion.

What this tests

Discussion

  • D?? 7 replies

    Started by hallerae

View all discussions Start a discussion