LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- rob.schimmel
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 10
- Joined: February 12th, 2009
- First Responder
PT49, S2, Q15 The greater the number of people
I was trapped by answer choice A. Can you help explain what is wrong with A and what is so right about C? I'm guessing it's the keyword "health"
-
- noah
-
Thanks Received: 1192
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: February 11th, 2009
Re: E49, S2, P15
Preptest 49 June 2006 LSAT Answers
15. (C)
Question type: Application/Strengthen the Conclusion
This argument explains that since more people regularly use household maintenance products (there’s an awkward term!), more people potentially could be harmed by it than by medicines, which are not regularly used as often, and therefore, it is more important to test these products than medicines. When reading this argument a reasonable objection is that medicines may be more harmful, or more often harmful than household products. To patch that hole, we might expect that the answer would suggest that household maintenance products are in fact as dangerous _ in terms of toxicity or frequency _ as medicines. As usual, the LSAT does not provide what we may consider the ideal answer and instead bolsters the argument differently. (C) strengthens the conclusion by linking the number of people who regularly use a product with the importance of testing that product's safety. This answer does fill the assumption gap by in effect saying "You might think that there’s a different set of criteria for judging whether it’s important to test something’s safety, but let me assure you, the more people who use something, the more important it is to test it."
Answer choice (A) is tempting in that it links frequency of use and the importance of testing a product’s safety, however it does not deal with relative importance. The argument focuses on it being more important to test household products than medicine, not that it is important. Furthermore, it leaves open room by adding the word "mainly." (B) is too broad (any product?) and (D) is out of scope. (E) only does not directly address the relative importance of testing the two types of products if indeed more people’s health would be at risk from the nonmedical product. For all we know, when more people are in danger from the nonmedical product the importance of testing each product type has become equalized (and the argument requires it to be more important to test the nonmedical one).
15. (C)
Question type: Application/Strengthen the Conclusion
This argument explains that since more people regularly use household maintenance products (there’s an awkward term!), more people potentially could be harmed by it than by medicines, which are not regularly used as often, and therefore, it is more important to test these products than medicines. When reading this argument a reasonable objection is that medicines may be more harmful, or more often harmful than household products. To patch that hole, we might expect that the answer would suggest that household maintenance products are in fact as dangerous _ in terms of toxicity or frequency _ as medicines. As usual, the LSAT does not provide what we may consider the ideal answer and instead bolsters the argument differently. (C) strengthens the conclusion by linking the number of people who regularly use a product with the importance of testing that product's safety. This answer does fill the assumption gap by in effect saying "You might think that there’s a different set of criteria for judging whether it’s important to test something’s safety, but let me assure you, the more people who use something, the more important it is to test it."
Answer choice (A) is tempting in that it links frequency of use and the importance of testing a product’s safety, however it does not deal with relative importance. The argument focuses on it being more important to test household products than medicine, not that it is important. Furthermore, it leaves open room by adding the word "mainly." (B) is too broad (any product?) and (D) is out of scope. (E) only does not directly address the relative importance of testing the two types of products if indeed more people’s health would be at risk from the nonmedical product. For all we know, when more people are in danger from the nonmedical product the importance of testing each product type has become equalized (and the argument requires it to be more important to test the nonmedical one).
2 posts Page 1 of 1