<p>I personally love the LSAT... logic puzzles are so fun.</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>Adirector of the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company argued
that the development costs for new vaccines that the
health department has requested should be subsidized by
the government, since the marketing of vaccines
promised to be less profitable than the marketing of any
other pharmaceutical product. In support of this claim
the director argued that sales of vaccines are likely to be
lower since each vaccine is administered to a patient
only once, whereas medicines that combat diseases and
chronic illnesses are administered many times to each
patient.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the
support offered by the company director for the claim
concerning the marketing of vaccines?
(A) Vaccines are administered to many more people
than are most other pharmaceutical products.
(B) Many of the diseases that vaccines are designed
to prevent can be successfully treated by
medicines.
(C) Pharmaceutical companies occasionally market
products that are neither medicines nor vaccines.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies other than the Rexx
Pharmaceutical Company produce vaccines.
(E) The cost of administering a vaccine is rarely
borne by the pharmaceutical company that
manufactures that vaccine.</p>
<p>The answer is A. The director says that vaccine sales will be lower than medicine sales because they aren't used as much. If you want to weaken his argument you must defend vaccines. A seems pretty good. B is pro-medicine, and C seems irrelevant. D is sort of anti-vaccine as it's like "this will hurt our sales even more with competition" and E is just irrelevant.</p>
<p>I almost want to take the LSAT now :X It looks fun</p>