LSAT Explanation PT 39, S2, Q22: The relaxation of regulations governing the

LSAT Question Stem

The statement that a large majority of new medicines are derived from plants and animals plays which one of the following roles in the argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is an Argument Part question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The passage argues that relaxing regulations for manufacturing and selling new medicines should not be accompanied by a general deregulation of industrial activity. It presents two premises and a conclusion.

Premise 1: Unless strict environmental regulations are maintained, endangered species of plants and animals will become extinct.

Premise 2: A large majority of new medicines are derived from plants and animals.

Conclusion: A general deregulatory approach could undermine the original intent of the relaxation of regulations governing the manufacture and sale of new medicines.

In simpler terms, imagine that you want to make it easier for people to bake and sell cookies (relaxing regulations). The passage argues that you shouldn't also remove all rules about how bakeries can operate (general deregulation), because if you do, important cookie ingredients (plants and animals) might disappear, making it harder to create new cookie recipes (new medicines).

Now, let's identify the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is an Argument Part question, and it's asking us to determine the role of the statement "a large majority of new medicines are derived from plants and animals" in the argument.

Let's go through each answer choice:

a) A reason for not restricting research into the medical usefulness of plants and animals.

This answer choice is incorrect because the passage does not address the issue of restricting research. It focuses on the potential consequences of general deregulation.

b) Evidence for a point of view that the argument is designed to undermine.

This answer choice is incorrect because the statement supports the argument's conclusion, rather than undermining it.

c) An illustration of the potential disaster that could result from continued overregulation of industrial activity.

This answer choice is incorrect because the passage argues against general deregulation, not overregulation.

d) A link between the extinction of species and the potentially decreased availability of new medicines.

This is the correct answer. The statement connects the extinction of species (caused by general deregulation) to the decreased availability of new medicines, which supports the conclusion that a general deregulatory approach could undermine the original intent of relaxing regulations for manufacturing and selling new medicines.

e) Support for the hypothesis that only very narrowly focused efforts at deregulation of industrial activity actually have beneficial results.

This answer choice is incorrect because it is too narrow and strong. The passage does not suggest that broader deregulation efforts would have no beneficial results, only that they could have some detrimental ones.

In conclusion, the correct answer is D, as the statement in question links the extinction of species to the potentially decreased availability of new medicines, supporting the argument's conclusion.