Top Law Schools

Does anyone know why (D) is incorrect? I do not understand the main difference between them; I understand that (B) says that falsely diagnosed children can still get treatment based on the false diagnosis whereas (D) says that the children incorrectly identified as autistic will not adversely be affected by the treatments, but I do not get the difference between their impact on the conclusion.

Is it that (D) assumes that incorrectly identified children will be getting treatment?

Thanks!

(D) is out of scope. Improperly diagnosed kids don't have autism, and the conclusion concerns autistic kids. I vacillated between (B) and (D) for about a minute before going back to the stimulus and re-reading the conclusion.

In that case, (B) is out of scope too. It, too, talks about false diagnoses and their treatments...right?

I am not trying to be a smartass or argue; I really just do not get why (B) is the right answer.

No worries. (B) isn't out of scope because the argument has made the leap from proper diagnoses of autistic kids to benefits from treatments. So the test, other than accurately diagnosing kids (which isn't a treatment benefit), has to have a beneficial relation to treatments. That (B) says "...sometimes falsely gives a positive diagnosis..." does not limit its implications to the falsely diagnosed kids.

Ahhhhh, gotcha! Thanks so much