LR Question 15 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Researcher: Every year approximately the same number…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: If we could stop all iatrogenic disease, the number of deaths would fall by half.
REASONING: Half of deaths are due to iatrogenic error.
ANALYSIS: This argument ignores that people are going to die of something.
If I save you from cancer, you might die of a heart attack within a month.
If you die from a doctor’s error, you’re already in the hospital. So you were probably sick. Your odds of dying from something are higher than normal.
So if the doctor doesn’t kill you, you might die from whatever sent you to the hospital in the first place.
Answers B, D and E refer to reality. But the researcher isn’t making a realistic argument. They’re asking us to imagine a hypothetical situation. What would happen if we could end all iatrogenic disease.
It’s like asking what would happen if humans could grow wings and fly. An interesting question, but nothing to do with reality.
___________
- The stimulus wasn’t talking about preventing non-iatrogenic diseases. (i.e. regular diseases)
- Actually, the argument assumes we can use safer treatments. Less invasive treatments might be a major way to prevent iatrogenic error.
- CORRECT. Exactly. If you survive doctor error, you might still die from a heart attack or pneumonia.
- The argument wasn’t saying whether it’s actually possible to end all iatrogenic error. The researcher is describing a hypothetical situation: what would happen if it were possible to end all iatrogenic deaths.
- It’s reasonable to assume that there’s always a risk of iatrogenic error. The author is asking us to imagine a hypothetical situation where we can get rid of this risk and end all iatrogenic error.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Hi Graeme, I loved this explanation – thank you so much. I spent way too long figuring this out after I missed it, and I just wanted to point out also that for (A), besides the fact that the argument doesn’t address noniatrogenic disease, “the occurrence of iatrogenic disease” is also irrelevant since the conclusion assumes that “medicine could find ways of preventing all iatrogenic disease” anyway.
Hi Amy,
Thanks for your comment! That’s a great point – the conclusion DOES assume this, and it’s another way to successfully eliminate A.