December 1999 LSAT Section 4 Question 20

Consumer advocate: The introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good...

AndrewArabie on August 28 at 07:11PM

Lessons from this Question

My anticipation was that the antihistamine had to be representative of drugs in general. Then I saw (A) and thought "yep that'll do it too." But I can't decide if (A) describes the opposite of a representative sample or if its super-representative as in its the best case scenario for the drugs on the market which would in a way be unrepresentative. I just need help sorting out my thoughts so I can take away a lesson more explicit from this answer choice.

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on August 29 at 11:54PM

Before I get to your question, I want to start by walking you through my thought process, since I'm interested in the parallels here.

Reading the passage, i think there's a huge gap between the conclusion and the premises. The passage is only talking about one drug, and then the author goes out and says that we need to slow drugs in general. What? To fix this we need to show that what's true of the allergy drug is similar to or even more well understood than the others.

Now looking at your comment, I think we were thinking something similar, the main difference being that you're seeing this as explicitly a sampling issue. I agree we can see this as a sampling issue, although it's possible to view in in broader terms.

To your more specific question, it's hyper representative I think. We know that the drug isn't good enough, and if it's better than most, we know that most are even worse.

AndrewArabie on August 30 at 05:24PM

Thank you Emil, I'll had a hyper representative sample to my arsenal.