LSAT 102 – Section 3 – Question 18

LSAT 102 - Section 3 - Question 18

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:36

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT102 S3 Q18
+LR
+Exp
Sufficient assumption +SA
Math +Math
A
2%
156
B
6%
160
C
4%
162
D
31%
160
E
56%
168
155
163
170
 +Hardest 147.613 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on nonstandard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Summary
The percent of money spent on treating disease X that went to standard (effective) treatments has gone down over the past 10 years. Thus, the amount of money spent on effective treatments of disease X has gone down over the past 10 years.

Missing Connection
Although the PERCENT that went to standard treatments has gone down, that doesn’t prove anything about the AMOUNT spent on standard treatments. This is because the overall amount spent on treating disease X might have increased. To prove that the amount spent on standard treatments has gone down, we want to learn that the overall amount spent on treating disease X has NOT increased.

A
Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade.
Although these varieties have become less common, that doesn’t prove with certainty that the overall amount spent on treating disease X has not increased. Perhaps these varieties are less common, but people have become more aware of disease X and are more likely to seek treatment for it today.
B
Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are more expensive now than they were a decade ago.
(B) doesn’t establish anything about the overall amount spent on treating disease X. It leaves open the possibility that the overall amount increased, in which case the conclusion wouldn’t have to be true.
C
Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due to treatment of disease X increased during the past decade.
We care about whether the overall amount spent on disease X has increased. But the proportion that disease X spending represents out of all medical expenditures (including things such as heart surgery, cancer, etc.) doesn’t reveal anything about the overall amount spent on disease X.
D
Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatments.
Even if most disease X spending goes toward nonstandard treatments, and only, let’s say, 40% goes toward standard treatments, we still don’t know whether overall spending on disease X has increased. So (D) doesn’t guarantee that the amount spent on standard treatments for disease X has gone down.
E
The total amount of money spent on treating disease X slowly declined during the past decade.
(E) establishes that the overall amount of disease X spending has not increased. If we know that the overall amount has not increased, but the % that went to standard treatments has gone down, we can validly infer that the amount that went to standard treatments has gone down.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply