Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A scientist says everyone who got better took Medicine M. A reporter then claims this means that everyone who took Medicine M must have gotten better.

Conclusion: If a participant in the medical study was not cured of athlete's foot, then that person definitely did not take medication M.

Reasoning: In the study, the only participants who were actually cured were those who had been given medication M.

Analysis: The reporter is confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient one. The scientist established that Medication M was necessary for a cure (Cure -> Med M), but the reporter interprets this as Medication M being sufficient for a cure (Med M -> Cure). In logical terms, the reporter is incorrectly treating the contrapositive of the scientist's statement. Look for an answer that describes this 'mistaken negation' or the confusion between what is required for a result and what guarantees a result.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

11.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the reporter’s error in reasoning?

Correct Answer
A
A correctly identifies the error: concluding from evidence that shows only that M was necessary for cure in this study that M always cures (treating M as sufficient). This mirrors the reporter’s invalid inverse/necessity-to-sufficiency leap.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep