PT14 LR S4 #19

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby jim-green » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:28 pm

We discussed this in our study grp the other day, however, I am still uncomfortable with it. Anyone have a good idea why A is correct and not D? A seems to suggest the conclusion in the stim is indeed valid, and the premises are invalid. However MLSAT says to accept the correctness of the premises.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby soj » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:41 pm

A does not suggest that the premises are invalid. The premises don't say anything about interaction of chemicals. The flaw with setting an allowable level of pollution for every single chemical is that even if a single chemical is safe at certain levels, combinations of chemicals (at levels which would be safe individually) might become much more dangerous through chemical reactions. A eliminates this flaw. I know this is NA, not flaw, but the way of approaching the problem is similar.

D is wrong because the calculation of allowable pollution is based on how much pollution the water can dilute. Therefore, if everyone always discharges exactly the allowable amount of pollution (violating D), you would still remain within the level of allowable pollution you've set out for yourself.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

PT11 LR S4 #19

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:11 pm

Thanks, Soj! I read your post for 10 min trying to understand what you are saying. Oops! Then I realized I meant PT 11, not PT14 as I incorrectly put in the subject of this thread. I was asking about the surgical trials of PT11 LR S4 #19. Sorry. Would you know why A is correct for PT11 LR S4 #19?

Ans A appears to say the premises are incorrect.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby soj » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Ooh, that was a tough question for me too because (A) seemed unrelated at first. The author argues that because the effectiveness of surgical procedures is related to the surgeon's skill, new surgical procedures should not undergo systematic tests the way new drugs should. That's the only reason offered for the argument--that drugs depend on the soundness of the drug itself to be effective, while surgical procedures depend on skill. But the author forgets that even if surgical procedures depend on skill, surgical procedures could also depend on the intrinsic soundness of the procedure. And if that is the case, wouldn't a period of clinical trial be useful for surgical procedures just as it's useful for drugs? (A) doesn't contradict the premises; it points out an oversight in the premises.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:09 pm

Soj, Thank you so much, you're awesome!

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby Jeffort » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:20 pm

(A) doesn't contradict any premises of the argument. The last sentence of the argument says that the effectiveness of surgical procedures is RELATED to the skills of the surgeon, but does NOT establish that the effectiveness of a procedure is SOLELY based on the surgeons skill in performing the procedure.

A doctor could perform a surgical procedure perfectly but the procedure itself may turn out to be an ineffective way to solve/treat/help a particular medical condition and could in fact turn out to be harmful to the patient. To determine whether or not a surgical procedure is effective for solving a particular medical problem, it would be helpful to try it out on some patients to see if it helps treat the medical condition. (like testing to see if cutting off somebodies hand is a good treatment option to cure carpal tunnel syndrome)

The argument is saying that surgical procedures should not be tested because their effectiveness depends in part on it being done properly and that a surgeon could mess it up, which is not an issue with drugs since there is no risk of doing it wrong, you just give the patient the drugs and see if it works or not.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:27 pm

OK, so the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The new angle provided by A shows why the conclusion doesn't follow. Thanks, Jeffort.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: PT14 LR S4 #19

Postby soj » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:30 pm

I agree with Jeffort. Looking back, I'd probably change "depend on" to "be related to" in my post above. The author's mistake is assuming that "related to" implies an exclusive relationship.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cianchetta0, jagerbom79 and 11 guests