Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument is weighing the costs of different types of treatment for mental disorders, not the cost of treating mental disorders vs. other types of illnesses, so this answer is out of scope. It also applies only to "minor" issues which is much more limited than the argument.

Incorrect. How the research can be coordinated and who is involved doesn't speak to the cost effectiveness of the developed treatments, so this answer doesn't affect the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Treating mental issues before they appear can be effective, but we need to study it more to develop these treatments.
Conclusion — Goal: Treat mental disorders ina cost—effective manner, Approach: Increase funding for research

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is interesting. It falls into a common pattern—the Goal/Approach argument. However, the goal doesn't show up until the conclusion. That's fine, though, and doesn't really change anything! We should still see if the recommended approach actually addresses the goal.

Here, the goal is very specific—it's not to treat mental disorders, it's to do so in a cost—effective manner. What's the approach for this? Investing in research on how to intervene before these issues develop.

That costs money, though, and so there's a cost associated with it. In order to conclude, then, that this approach will reach the goal of providing for cost—effective treatment, we need to know that the savings to be had by intervening before the onset of these issues is less expensive than treating them after they develop. Let's find an answer establishing the relative cost of the treatments at different times!

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that addressing a mental disorder before it starts is "relatively inexpensive" compared to treating it after it develops. If that's the case then investing in research to make the former type of treatment possible could very much save money in the long run supporting the conclusion that this research will help in reaching the goal and thus should be done.

Key Takeaway:
Goal/Approach passages on the LSAT have several forms—this is the most straightforward where a goal is established and an approach is supported. (The other main one is where the author criticizes a given approach and judges its effectiveness.) When that's the case the stimulus will frequently fail to establish that the approach actually allows the goal to be met and thus answers that connect the two strengthen that argument.

Incorrect. The relative amount of money going into this research doesn't determine how cost effective it is. First, because it doesn't establish that a lot of money is going into it—just more than ever before (that could still be quite a small amount). And second, because even if a lot of money is going into research, it could still be cost—effective if it saves even more money on treatment.

Incorrect. While this answer choice suggests that treating a mental disorder after its onset might be quite expensive since it keeps recurring, that doesn't speak to the cost of preventing it or mitigating it ahead of time. Even if it's quite expensive to treat after onset, it could still be even more expensive to mitigate factors ahead of time, especially since the research to be able to do that requires funding. Since this answer doesn't allow a comparison to be drawn, it can't affect the comparative argument.