Question

Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors drug companies issued an average of 60 citations a year for serious violations of drug- promotion laws. Between 1976 and 1980, the annual average for issuance of such citations was only 5 . This decrease indicates that the government office was, on average, considerably more lax in enforcing drug-promotion laws between 1976 and 1980 than it was between 1971 and 1975. The argument assumes which one of the following? (A) The decrease in the number of citations was not caused by a decrease in drug companies' violations of drug-promotion laws. (B) A change in enforcement of drug-promotion laws did not apply to minor violations. (C) The enforcement of drug-promotion laws changed in response to political pressure. (D) The government office should not issue more than an average of 5 citations a year to drug companies for serious violations of drug-promotion laws. (E) Before 1971 the government office issued more than 60 citations a year to drug companies for serious violations of drug-promotion laws.

Short answer

The argument assumes (A).

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Argument

The argument suggests that a decrease in citations indicates a more lax enforcement of drug-promotion laws from 1976 to 1980 compared with 1971 to 1975.

Analyze the Assumption

For the argument to hold, it must assume that the decrease in citations is not due to a reduction in the number of actual violations.

Evaluate Option A

Option A states that the decrease in the number of citations was not caused by a decrease in violations. If true, this supports the idea that enforcement was laxer.

Evaluate Option B

Option B focuses on minor violations, but the argument concerns serious violations. Therefore, it is not directly relevant.

Evaluate Option C

Option C suggests political pressure influenced enforcement, but the argument does not address why enforcement changed, only that it was laxer.

Evaluate Option D

Option D implies a normative statement about the number of citations that should be issued, which does not relate to the assumption of why fewer citations were issued.

Evaluate Option E

Option E discusses the number of citations before 1971, which is irrelevant to the argument comparing 1971-1975 to 1976-1980.

Select the Correct Assumption

Option A is the assumption underlying the argument; it indicates that fewer citations must imply laxer enforcement rather than fewer violations.

Key concepts

Assumption Identification

When analyzing arguments in logical reasoning, one of the most crucial skills to develop is assumption identification. Assumptions are unstated premises that must be true for an argument to hold. These are the skeletons holding the structure of the argument in place. Understanding these hidden elements is particularly important on exams like the LSAT, where argument evaluation is a core component.

In the exercise about the decrease in citations, the argument assumes that the drop in numbers did not result from fewer violations. This means that the author believes no other explanations account for the decrease except a lax in enforcement. If this assumption is incorrect, the argument falls apart. To identify assumptions, ask yourself what must be true for the conclusion to make sense. This practice broadens your understanding and prepares you for various logical scenarios. It also hones your critical thinking abilities, enabling you to dissect arguments and pinpoint their weaknesses.

Logical Analysis

Logical analysis involves dissecting an argument into its fundamental parts to evaluate its validity and soundness. This skill helps to identify the reasoning pattern and evaluate how conclusions are drawn from premises. When an argument is presented, it is essential to look at the evidence supporting the conclusion and ask if it logically connects to the conclusion given.

For the exercise on citation statistics, the logical analysis involves examining the correlation between the number of citations and the enforcement of drug-promotion laws. What assumptions are being made about this correlation? Is it valid to say that fewer citations mean more lax enforcement without further evidence? Logical analysis aids in these evaluations, ensuring that arguments are not accepted at face value but are critically examined for logical consistency.

• Identify the premises and conclusion.
• Determine whether the premises logically support the conclusion.
• Look for any logical fallacies or gaps in reasoning.

Argument Evaluation

Argument evaluation is an extension of logical analysis, focusing not just on dissecting an argument but assessing its overall strength and relevance. In this step, we scrutinize the supporting evidence, the logical flow, and the underlying assumptions to decide whether the argument is convincing.

For the exercise in question, evaluating the argument requires understanding why option A is the correct choice. Here, we ask: Does the evidence provided support the conclusion that oversight was more lax? What other factors might be at play, like improvements in pharmaceutical compliance or changes in citation criteria? Evaluating an argument involves looking beyond the surface to see if alternative explanations or evidence compromises the argument's strength. It's about being skeptical in a constructive way to ensure that the argument is watertight.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the art of systematic evaluation to form a judgment. This involves stepping back and viewing an argument from multiple angles, considering not just the given information but also what is left unsaid. On exams like the LSAT, this skill is vital for navigating not just the logical reasoning section but the entire test.

In our exercise, critical thinking requires us to question the given decrease in citations. Is it fair to attribute this purely to laxness without evidence? Could there be other interpretations? Such as changes in industry standards or shifts in policy focus? Critical thinking pushes you to think deeper than surface-level analysis, encouraging you to challenge assumptions, evaluate evidence rigorously, and construct logical, well-founded conclusions.

• Ask reflective questions rather than taking information as given.
• Compare different viewpoints to assess their validity.
• Look for hidden biases or assumptions that might skew interpretation.