LR Question 17 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: The government health service has said that it…
QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
FACTS:
- The government won’t pay for Antinfia unless there are trials.
- The maker of Antinfia won’t run trials unless the government pays for the drug.
ANALYSIS: I simplified the facts slightly to make the catch-22 more obvious. The government won’t pay without trials, and trials won’t happen without payment. So basically, this drug isn’t going to get to market. It will never undergo trials, it will never get paid for, and it will never be in widespread circulation.
Note: Catch-22 is a word that entered the English language due to Joseph Heller’s novel of the same name. The main character flew on a bomber in WWII. He wanted to be declared insane so he wouldn’t have to fly. But his desire to avoid flying was the proof that he was sane.
So if he wanted to fly, he would be insane, but would have to fly. If he didn’t want to fly, he would be sane, therefore he must fly. There was no way out. Exactly the same situation with Antinfia.
___________
- Hard to say. We know the government won’t pay for Antinfia, but maybe there are other drugs it will pay for without trials.
- CORRECT. This is likely. Widespread circulation will only happen with government support. But government support won’t happen without trials, which require widespread circulation. So Antinfia is stuck and will never get to market. (Technically, a rich person could fund trials, but that’s ok, since this is just a “most strongly supported” question. So it’s possible but very unlikely Antinfia will get to market.)
- We have no idea what patients will do. Maybe Antinfia costs too much money even for rich people to buy it.
- We don’t know this. Antinfia is unproven, so it’s unclear why the government ought to pay.
- We don’t know. The stimulus never said how much Antinfia costs. It’s possible the government requires trials before funding even cheap drugs.
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,
So I have a problem with this particular question. It seems like there has to be an outside assumption that no one can pay for the drug, and that private insurances will not cover the drug, for answer B to work. I know a lot of governments have single payer/universal healthcare, in which case this is perhaps a moot objection, but for a test that is designed for takers in the US this seems rather strange? Also, the use of the word “never” in answer B seems really strong, which is why I avoided that particular answer. Is there a balance as to how much we can assume regarding outside information? I also noted the Catch-22 but unfortunately took a different subsequent step: that it could still go to the private marketplace.
Thanks!
With regard to this particular question, the stimulus uses conditional logic, so we can actually bring in outside assumptions more safely. In the last sentence, we’re told that the drug will be in widespread circulation only if the government health service pays for Antinfia. Here’s what the conditional diagram looks like:
Widespread circulation –> Govt. Pays
Contrapositive: ~Government Pays –> ~Widespread Circulation
So, we’re not asked to assume that no one can pay for the drug privately, we’re asked to assume that if the government doesn’t pay, then the drug won’t be in widespread circulation. That’s also why (B) is the right answer, even if it does employ strong language. A general rule of thumb is that if the stimulus in a most strongly supported questions uses a lot of conditional reasoning, you shouldn’t view answer choices that use strong language with as much suspicion as you normally would.
If we’re looking at the LSAT’s general approach to outside assumptions though (i.e. outside this specific question), then the answer to your question gets a bit more tricky. Test-takers are mostly asked to tightly adhere to the language, logic, and “world” of each stimulus, but that doesn’t mean 1) you can’t make common-sense assumptions, and 2) if an answer choice uses language that’s slightly different than the text of the stimulus but otherwise means the exact same thing (e.g. words that are synonymous), you can treat those parts of the stimulus and answer choice as meaning the same thing. The LSAT uses a reasonable person test. If literally every reasonable, educated person would agree with an assumption, then it’s a common sense assumption you can assume. If many would dispute, then it’s not something you can assume. That’s where you can draw the line.
Type the following into your Google search bar to find a series of examples of explanations where Graeme talks about the importance of making common-sense assumptions when answering questions on the test: “site:lsathacks.com common sense”. He either mentions those assumptions in the explanation itself, or in follow-up comments after the explanations.