McKinley acknowledges that the purpose of this double-blind study is to test the efficacy of the drug. However, the various effects of the drug will reveal to the doctors which patients received the drug, thus breaking the double-blindness. Mckinley concludes that the study cannot be done.
Engle argues against that conclusion, saying that McKinley is assuming what the outcome will be.
Is that really what McKinley is doing? Not necessarily, because the study is meant to test the efficacy of the drug. McKinley has made no claim about the drug's efficacy. However, the side effects of this drug may already be known. McKinley doesn't need to predict the end of the study to conclude that these effects will ruin the study.
The mistaken interpretation of McKinley's argument is best expressed by D. Engle thinks that McKinley is predicting the therapeutic effects before the study can compare them. Rather, McKinley is simply discussing the known side effects.
I don't love the word choice either, but in this case "therapeutic effects" are the same as the efficacy of the drug. This is what the study is meant to examine. The "therapeutic effects" are the drug's purpose. Pay attention to the word various. You didn't include it when you quoted the passage in your post. "Various effects on patients' bodies" refers to side effects, meaning they are not the purpose of the drug.
The LSAT will often phrase things differently (efficacy vs. therapeutic effects) in an effort to confuse you. When you are presented with a problem like this, and you've eliminated most of your wrong answers, try not to let small differences in word choice distract you from the true meaning of the arguments.
tomgbeanNovember 8, 2019
Thanks for the explanation. It seems like the side-effects could be expected side-effects while the therapeutic effects could also be expected therapeutic effects. It's reasonable that the drug makers made the drugs with an intended effect in mind. It's more logically sound to say that the side-effects are unknown than to say that they may be known prior to the study. With this logic it would also be correct to say that the therapeutic effects or how patients would respond to the drug is what more of a known factor since the drug makers design the drugs to have specific effects for whatever it was meant to treat. I understand what you are saying, it just doesn't seem logically sound.
SkylarNovember 8, 2019
@tomgbean Maybe I can help.
You originally asked why "therapeutic effects" cannot be logically drawn from "[various] effects on patients' bodies." In reading McKinley's statement alone, this could be drawn. In fact, it is the interpretation that Engle draws as identified in (D). Since McKinley does not specify what type of various effects he is referring to, it is left open for interpretation.
The question is asking about Engle's interpretation of McKinley's remarks (even if this interpretation is wrong), so we must think about this through the lens of Engle's response. Engle believes that McKinley's comments about seeing an effect assume the outcome of the experiment. Therefore, we can deduce that he believes McKinley's reference to "various effects on patients' bodies" refers to the therapeutic results that occur from the drug working, because this would be consistent with Engle's statements. If McKinley was arguing that the presence of therapeutic effects would prevent the study from being a double-blind, he is assuming the outcome by assuming that the drugs will have a therapeutic effect/work. However, if McKinley was referring to side effects that may occur with the drug, then he is not commenting on the therapeutic effects/efficacy of the drug or assuming the outcome of the study, which would make Engle's statement illogical.
In terms of your thoughts on the therapeutic effects being more predictable than the side effects, I would propose a hypothetical in which a new drug is invented to treat a disease. This drug is made up of a unique combination of other drugs that are each known to cause headaches as a side effect. In this case, it would likely be expected that the new drug would cause headaches, but it would be unknown if the new drug could cure the disease. Also, it is important to remember that the passage states that a double-blind study is "the most effective procedure for testing the efficacy of a drug." There is no need to test the efficacy/therapeutic effect of a drug if these have already been established. Even though the inventors created the drug with an intended purpose, they still need to test the drug to see if it achieves this purpose in actuality/works as designed.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have additional questions!
