by ohthatpatrick Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:20 pm
I agree that "agreement by scientists" sticks out with (C), but that's basically how LSAT is trying to make this less appealing. (Remember, we're looking for the for 'best' answer, not the perfect one).
What I try to with these is, once I've read both people, pick from the 1st person's statements WHICH statement the second person disagreed with.
Here, Fran actually disagrees with Sherrie's 2nd and 3rd statement.
Fran disagrees with "for this reason alone, tobacco should be treated like more dangerous drugs, i.e. govt's should restrict its sale and manufacture"
For WHAT reason alone? The reason is "scientists now agree that nicotine in tobacco is addictive".
Predicting an answer here, we might say "should or shouldn't all addictive substances be treated the same way, including having governmental restriction of the substance's sale and manufacture"?
(A) Neither party comments on "all drugs".
(B) Fran clearly would say "yes" to this, but Sherrie does not have a clear position on it.
(C) Sherrie clearly agrees and there is support that Fran would disagree, since Fran does not think "addictiveness" justifies restrictions in the case of coffee and soft drinks. Fran doesn't directly comment on scientists, but Fran is disagreeing with Sherrie's move from "scientists now agree nicotine is addictive, so THIS REASON ALONE should prompt govt. restriction", so scientific agreement is still within the scope of the conversation being had between the two.
(D) Neither party is discussing who is a proper authority. It can be inferred that Sherrie finds scientists to be a credible authority, but there's definitely no way to infer that Fran finds scientists to be IMPROPER authorities.
(E) The cooperation between scientists and govt. is way outside the scope.