Q13 - Public health will improve

[pretty_shy96]

I chose the correct answer choice for this question which would be A. However, I was able to eliminate B, C, and E. I was debating between A and D. And ultimately I eliminated D. Can anyone explain why D is incorrect, please?
My initial thought on choice D was: If some newspapers are willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, then it would not help improve public health because the journals might not be accurate. And if it is not accurate then the general public could be following such inaccurate advice.

Thanks in advance

[christine.defenbaugh]

I'm so glad you posted this question, pretty_shy96! You've brought up an issue that so often throws students off course on strengthen and weaken questions!

For these questions, it's critical that the answer choice weaken the argument all by itself, without adding a lot of new information to 'help' it weaken! Your explanation for (D) is that:

If some newspapers are willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, then it would not help improve public health because the journals might not be accurate. And if it is not accurate then the general public could be following such inaccurate advice.

But what have you added to (D) here? If the medical info is all correct, then the publishing is not a bad thing for public health. In other words, it's not the newspapers' willingness to publish that is really the problem, it's the inaccuracy of the advice! But that wasn't in the answer choice! You had to add it!

Let's take a step back to the core:

PREMISE:
Public release of new med info allows public to use it.
Peer review = super slow.
CONCLUSION:
Skipping peer review will improve public health faster.

It sounds to me like you've correctly identified that a big wrench in the gears of this plan would be if some significant part of the new med info that was released was BAD info! The only answer choice that directly expresses this is (A).


Non-weakeners
(B)and (D) are actually strengtheners! If the medical information was good information, then the fact that people do actually use such information and the fact that newspapers would be willing to pass the information along to the public would increase the likelihood that public health would improve.

Notice that either of these would weaken only if you included the idea from answer choice (A) that a lot of the medical information is bad!

(C) So new medical information isn't the *only* way - it can still help!

(E) But the public will already have the information - who cares if they continue to peer review at that point?




There are many incorrect answer choices for strengthen/weaken questions that only do that job once we add in a new story to 'help them out'. Be vigilant that you are assessing the answer choice by itself!

Please let me know if that completely answers your question!

[kkate]

If D stated "some newspapers already publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals", would this weaken the argument? This would suggest that even before the completion of the turtle speed peer-review process, public release of some new medical information is out, thereby weakening the argument. Can someone validate?

[Lsatlover4eva1]

Can an LSAT Geek please critique my reasoning for (D).

Since it says "SOME newspapers would be willing..." isn't it fair to accept some to mean one newspaper, which if it was the case that only one newspaper was willing to publish the results then public health wouldn't necessarily improve more quickly?

Thanks.