PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

polyester
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:51 pm

PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

Postby polyester » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:25 pm

For #16 I know the answer is C, but by the stimulus having said 'recovery rates at the two hospitals are similar for patients with similar illnesses', doesn't this discount the possibility that patients are treated for difference illnesses at the two hospitals (since we're only looking at recovery rates for similar illnesses). Or is the problem that it's only similar and not the same?

For #17 There are two answer choices that seem to be both correct to me. If you prove a premise to be false, this also disproves the conclusion, so couldn't the answer also be D?

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

Postby jeremydc » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:39 pm

16. (C) Flaw
Where studies and statistics form the basis of evidence, always ask whether the information theyprovide is the right set of information to draw theconclusion set forth—often, it is not.The author concludes that UH could discharge peoplesooner without affecting quality of care. The evidenceto support that idea is that another hospital has as shorter average stay, though people treated for similar illnesses recover at similar rates in the two hospitals.The missing piece, of course, is that we don’t know anything about the illnesses people are being treated for at the two different hospitals. Our author assumes that they’re largely comparable, but that might not be true, as correct answer choice (C) points out. (A)simply isn’t true, and neither is (B); the author doesn’ t suggest that length of stay is necessary to quality of care (in fact, he suggests the opposite). (D) is too categorical; the author doesn’t suggest that it’s“never” relevant. (E) is irrelevant, since the author addressed quality of care and not preference.

17. (B) Role of Statement
Don’t go deeper than the question requires; Role of Statement questions provide an opportunity to stockpile some time for a tougher question.Role of Statement questions call upon the core LR skill of breaking down arguments—and then stop there. This should be a quick question, because you only have to perform the first step in the process and separate the argument into its component parts. This one is a little trickier in practice, though, because there are two arguments in play. We’re looking for the role of the statement in the Philosopher’s argument. The Philosopher’s conclusion is that we shouldn’t buy in to Graham’s argument. His evidence is that people are sometimes truly happy when they’re sleeping, contrary to Graham’s assertion that they’re only happy when they’re doing something. So we know that the statement that people are sometimes truly happy when sleeping is intended to contradict Graham (if you’ve come that far, you can eliminate answer choices (A)and (C)), but which piece of Graham’s argument?Graham’s conclusion is that the best life is full of activity. His evidence is that a person is truly happy only when doing something; that’s the piece the sleep example attacks. Answer choice (B) correctly identifies the statement as one intended to break down Graham’s evidence. (A) attributes the statement to the wrong person, as does (C). (D) targets the wrong piece of Graham’s argument, and (E) assigns the statement the wrong role in the Philosopher’s argument—something that’s easily recognized if you break down the argument into evidence and conclusion at the outset.


* Hope that clears it up.

polyester
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

Postby polyester » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:56 pm

Thank you. 17 seems to make sense now for me.

But for #16 don't we know something about the illnesses? That they're similar? Or is this not useful because the illnesses aren't described to be the same?

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

Postby jeremydc » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:58 pm

Lol i really don't know, I just got that off the Kaplan explanations.

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

Postby hax123 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:59 am

The possibility that the argument overlooked is that one hospital may generally treat patients with more serious illnesses, which intrinsically require longer recovery times. This has nothing to do with the quality of the care provided.

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: PT 52 Section 3 #16 & 17

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:22 pm

Not sure if that did it for you, but if not, you can find both questions explained here: http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/preptes ... r-f83.html

Good luck!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Bing [Bot], Instrumental, ngogirl12, Pozzo, towel13661, Vino.Veritas and 5 guests