medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The new antiviral shortened symptom duration in every clinical trial in which it was tested. Because a drug that consistently shortens symptoms will find a ready market, the manufacturer can expect strong sales once the drug is approved. Investors, accordingly, should not be deterred by the drug's unusually high development cost.
The statement that the new antiviral shortened symptom duration in every clinical trial in which it was tested plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
- It is an intermediate conclusion inferred from the drug's market prospects.
- It is evidence offered in support of the prediction that the manufacturer can expect strong sales.
- It is a concession the author makes to an opposing point of view.
- It is the main conclusion, which the argument's other statements are designed to support, rather than evidence offered in support of the later investment recommendation.
- It is background about clinical testing that plays no role in the sales forecast.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?