Predict Early and Often (Ep. 1556)

Ben Olson (0:02)

Hey there, welcome to LSAT Demon Daily. I'm Ben Olson, that's Nathan Fox. We're the founders of lsatdemon.com and our weekly podcast, Thinking LSAT. We're gonna go ahead and do a logical reasoning question here. And I think you're reading.

Nathan Fox (0:12)

Yeah, I'll read it to you and you can react.

Ben Olson (0:14)

Okay.

Nathan Fox (0:15)

A pharmacologist says, a new drug tested on laboratory mice has shown strong effectiveness against a fast spreading bacterial infection in humans.

Ben Olson (0:30)

Okay. So a lot of drug testing takes place on animals and mice in particular.

Apparently, this drug is effective at maybe stopping this infection, which apparently is in humans. I'm not surprised that they're testing this thing that's in humans on mice. But of course, right, the issue with all these studies is that it's like some things that work for mice don't always work for humans.

Nathan Fox (0:56)

Right. Yeah. So you're just, you're already on guard, right? It's like, hey, I get it. This worked in mice. Maybe it works in humans. I'm not saying it doesn't work in humans.

But I am telling you that if you immediately say, therefore, so-and-so should take this drug for, you know, you're gonna say, wait a second. Not only might it not work in humans, but it might kill humans, as far as we know. All right, second sentence says, although it caused mild side effects like fatigue in mice, these symptoms were minor and temporary.

Ben Olson (1:36)

Same issue, okay. Those symptoms might not even happen in humans at all. Or as you just said, they might be dramatically worse.

Fatigue for a mouse who doesn't have a very long lifespan might turn into death for humans.

Nathan Fox (1:50)

You never know, you just have no idea, right? So again, I still don't know that this will even work in humans.

Yeah. And yeah, I get it. That's great. I'm glad the side effects were mild in mice, and I hope that that's the case for humans.

Ben Olson (2:03)

Yeah, or maybe nonexistent, yeah.

Nathan Fox (2:05)

But I don't know that that's the case.

Ben Olson (2:07)

Yeah.

Nathan Fox (2:08)

Researchers observed clear improvements in the mice's health with the treatment significantly reducing the infection's impact.

Ben Olson (2:16)

Sounds like it's just repeating what we already know.

Nathan Fox (2:20)

Yeah, I was already giving them credit for, seems like this works in mice.

Ben Olson (2:24)

Yeah.

Nathan Fox (2:25)

Given the limited severity of the side effects, and the drug's overall success, comma, I can see Ben stealing himself here for the inevitable.

Ben Olson (2:42)

The inevitable terrible conclusion, which is like, oh, we should start giving this out to humans ASAP. I mean, I don't know what they're going to say, but given the limited severity of the side effects and the drug's overall success, all right, comma, you're about to drop your conclusion, which is something that, by the way, must be true, given everything that you've said.

Nathan Fox (3:04)

If it's a valid argument, you would have proven that your conclusion is true already. How could they possibly have proven that their conclusion is true?

Ben Olson (3:16)

Yeah, unless they go on to something really mild and say, therefore, we should consider testing this in humans. Yeah, you're absolutely right, do it, go.

Nathan Fox (3:25)

But the thing Ben is bracing himself for is, they could say wild shit after this comma here. They could say, therefore, we should immediately start giving this to every infant, just in case they have a chance of getting this bacterial infection.

Ben Olson (3:41)

We should ignore the FDA's limitations and just, you know.

Nathan Fox (3:46)

We should put it in the water supply at every nursing home because we want to make sure that this, you know, it'll just because, hey, it works in mice, so let's give it to all the old folks and infants. Yeah.

Ben Olson (4:00)

Okay.

Nathan Fox (4:00)

So let's see what they actually say. They say, comma, the benefits of the treatment appear to outweigh the drawbacks for humans with the fast spreading bacterial infection.

Ben Olson (4:12)

Okay.

Nathan Fox (4:13)

I'm glad they at least limited it to people who have the infection because these conclusions can be so bad that they could have actually made a conclusion about all humans.

Ben Olson (4:23)

Yeah. So thankfully, they're limited to, yes, like you said, humans with the bacterial infection. They're also not making a recommendation as to what we should do about it. Thank God. They're just saying the benefits appear to outweigh the drawbacks.

Of course, the same qualm persists, and that is okay.