LSAT 152 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Health-care facilities have a duty to protect their patients …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Healthcare facilities must make flu vaccines mandatory for employees.

REASONING: Hospitals have a duty to protect patients from unnecessary harm. The flu poses serious risks to patients, and vaccines significantly reduce the spread.

ANALYSIS: The conclusion isn’t just saying vaccines are helpful or facilities should encourage vaccination. It’s much stronger: vaccination must be mandatory.

That means the argument needs the idea that anything less than a mandatory rule would not do the job well enough. Otherwise, a facility could protect patients with a voluntary vaccination program, masking requirements, reassignment rules, or some other less coercive policy.

The assumption is that voluntary vaccination would not adequately protect patients. Without that, the move from “vaccines help” to “mandatory vaccination is required” is too fast.

Negate it and you can see the problem clearly: if voluntary policies would adequately protect patients, then the conclusion that mandatory vaccination is necessary falls apart.

___________

1. Employee views about their rights might matter politically, but they do not determine whether the argument works logically. Even if employees object, the policy could still be necessary.
2. The argument does not need influenza to be the most harmful airborne pathogen. It only needs influenza to be harmful enough that facilities have a duty to respond.
3. This might make the problem worse, but it is not necessary. Even if most patients are vaccinated, the argument could still claim mandatory employee vaccination is needed.
4. CORRECT. If voluntary policies wouldn’t protect patients, then the stronger step to mandatory vaccination makes sense.
   Negation: Voluntary vaccine policies would adequately protect patients.
5. Society’s acceptance in other contexts is irrelevant. The argument is about whether the policy is necessary here, not whether it would be popular or familiar.