PT 7 Sec 4 # 17 & 24 Forum
-
helloitslaura
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:01 pm
Re: PT 7 Sec 4 # 17 & 24
Question 17:
First, this seems to me to be one of those LSAT questions that jumble around the order of the sentences. If the sentences were arranged like this, it would be more clear to me. So my first piece of advise is to try and be wary of this type of questions and simplify it to make sense to you.
1. Insurance introduced to cover basic health costs.
2. Insurers only pay for unusual procedures (more costly $$) with the new healthcare program.
3. Costs of unusual procedures should go down.
4. Costs of private health insurance went up.
I have a problem with the way this question is worded because of their use of the word "cost". The "cost" could be the cost that the insurance companies bear, but the question seems to be asking about the "cost" to the consumers. This might be an aside, or this might be the very thing that you are being tested on.
There are a few other things in this question that do not seem to connect. What is the relationship between the cost of the procedures and the cost of private health insurance? Think about the parts-to-whole fallacy - just because the cost of one part goes up or down, you cannot assume that the WHOLE cost will go up or down accordingly. Who knows what those other parts are doing.
The question also incorporates the assumption that that "unusual" procedures are also higher in cost. Is it? To a reasonable person, it would seem so, but this is LSAT-world where your ability to laser out these types of assumptions is
going to be tested.
So looking at the answer choices (no mercy!)
(A) Doesn't tell you why costs went up. If this were true, costs would go down.
(B) is weak. You need to make a few more assumptions to make this true. If 80% of the costs were associated with procedures that are now-covered... what does this have to do with the private insurer? Remember that if you have to talk yourself into an answer, it's probably wrong.
(C) If this were true there would be no affect on the costs of unusual services assuming that the proportion of services (usual vs. unusual) remain consistent pre and post National Scheme. Again, making this true requires an assumption.
(D) Ah. If the private health insurers are losing customers, then the costs are spread over a smaller denominator. This is not an assumption, this is a true inference. Try it. Divide 100 by 10. Now divide 100 by 5. This question looks like a winner.
(E) If the proportion of the total has declined, it MIGHT have the same effect of (D). This seems like a tempting choice, but this seems to require the assumption that the proportion of usual vs. unusual expenditures is consistent with the total. Tricky use of the word "proportion" here to try to lead you into this thinking.
::Just looked up the answer::
And whaddya know, I'm correct. I swear I just typed the above as I thought about it. If I can do it, so can you, dude. I'm pretty smart but not a genius (Temple Law in the fall).
Good luck!
First, this seems to me to be one of those LSAT questions that jumble around the order of the sentences. If the sentences were arranged like this, it would be more clear to me. So my first piece of advise is to try and be wary of this type of questions and simplify it to make sense to you.
1. Insurance introduced to cover basic health costs.
2. Insurers only pay for unusual procedures (more costly $$) with the new healthcare program.
3. Costs of unusual procedures should go down.
4. Costs of private health insurance went up.
I have a problem with the way this question is worded because of their use of the word "cost". The "cost" could be the cost that the insurance companies bear, but the question seems to be asking about the "cost" to the consumers. This might be an aside, or this might be the very thing that you are being tested on.
There are a few other things in this question that do not seem to connect. What is the relationship between the cost of the procedures and the cost of private health insurance? Think about the parts-to-whole fallacy - just because the cost of one part goes up or down, you cannot assume that the WHOLE cost will go up or down accordingly. Who knows what those other parts are doing.
The question also incorporates the assumption that that "unusual" procedures are also higher in cost. Is it? To a reasonable person, it would seem so, but this is LSAT-world where your ability to laser out these types of assumptions is
going to be tested.
So looking at the answer choices (no mercy!)
(A) Doesn't tell you why costs went up. If this were true, costs would go down.
(B) is weak. You need to make a few more assumptions to make this true. If 80% of the costs were associated with procedures that are now-covered... what does this have to do with the private insurer? Remember that if you have to talk yourself into an answer, it's probably wrong.
(C) If this were true there would be no affect on the costs of unusual services assuming that the proportion of services (usual vs. unusual) remain consistent pre and post National Scheme. Again, making this true requires an assumption.
(D) Ah. If the private health insurers are losing customers, then the costs are spread over a smaller denominator. This is not an assumption, this is a true inference. Try it. Divide 100 by 10. Now divide 100 by 5. This question looks like a winner.
(E) If the proportion of the total has declined, it MIGHT have the same effect of (D). This seems like a tempting choice, but this seems to require the assumption that the proportion of usual vs. unusual expenditures is consistent with the total. Tricky use of the word "proportion" here to try to lead you into this thinking.
::Just looked up the answer::
And whaddya know, I'm correct. I swear I just typed the above as I thought about it. If I can do it, so can you, dude. I'm pretty smart but not a genius (Temple Law in the fall).
Good luck!
