LSAT 135 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Economically, Country X should create a nationwide transport system for seriously injured patients.

REASONING: Getting injured people to trauma centers more quickly would save many lives. Those people would continue working, increasing the country’s economy and generating more tax revenue.

ANALYSIS: Let’s break down the argument:

1. Better transportation → more lives saved
2. More lives saved → more earnings
3. More earnings → higher GDP and more tax revenue

Therefore, the system makes economic sense.

1 and 3 make sense. Better transportation means more lives saved because you’re getting a seriously sick person to a specialized center faster, meaning that they have better chances at survival.

And for 3, more earnings often does mean higher GDP and tax revenue because people are making more money.

The second conditional is the tricky one. There’s a jump from “more lives saved” to “more earnings for the country”.

That only works if saving these people’s lives actually increases the country’s economic output.

Imagine if all of those extra lives saved just ended up in lifelong unemployment due to disability. That would not mean more earnings for the country, and the rest of the argument wouldn’t follow.

Or suppose that every survivor simply takes a job that someone else would’ve had. Then the survivor earns income, someone else doesn’t, total employment stays the same, and the country’s economy doesn’t change.

In either of those cases, the argument falls apart because there’s no net economic gain.

So the author has to assume that saving these lives results in a net increase in productive employment.

___________

1. Country Y is just mentioned as an example. The argument doesn’t depend on the two countries having similar incomes. The proposal could still make economic sense even if country X is richer or poorer.
   Negation: Income is different in country X and Y.
2. The stimulus never says country X lacks trauma centers. In fact, it talks about transporting patients to specialized trauma centers, suggesting they already exist. The proposal is about improving access, not creating the centers.
   Negation: Right now, there are specialized trauma centers in country X.
3. This is tempting because the argument talks about economics, but the author never actually claims the proposal saves money or is costless. The argument is specifically that the additional earnings and tax revenue justify the program. The treatment could be more expensive and the conclusion could still hold if the economic benefits outweighed those costs.
   Negation: Treatment at trauma centers is more expensive than treatment elsewhere.
4. CORRECT. The author assumes that saving lives leads to additional productive workers. Like I wrote above, there’s a possibility that survivors stay unemployed due to disability or just replace workers who would have been employed anyway. If that was the case, there’s no reason to think GDP or tax revenues would rise.
   Negation: There would NOT be a net increase in employment if more people survived serious injury.
5. Too narrow. The argument is about all seriously injured people, not just victims of automobile accidents. Even if most car accident victims already receive trauma-center care, the proposal could still benefit many other seriously injured people.
   Negation: Most people seriously injured in car accidents currently do receive treatment in specialized trauma centers.