Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 5

Incorrect. This answer establishes that the two groups mentioned in the stimulus are the only two groups out there, but this is neither necessary for the comparison to hold, nor does it explain why they had the same outcomes and yet experts still view medication as sometimes necessary.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Patients receiving both drugs and PT recover as well as those who receive just PT, but doctors say the drugs are a necessary part of recovery for those who get them.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here brings up two groups that are different—one received both PT and drugs for their back injury; the other received just PT. However, the outcome for both groups was similar—they did as well" as each other in their recovery.

However, the experts don't conclude from this that the drugs are unnecessary—rather, they conclude that they are necessary for those who receive them. And therein lies the paradox—why do experts think these drugs are necessary when outcomes are the same as without them?

As with any question that brings up a comparison between groups, we would need to know that the groups are similar in all key respects. Here, it's possible that those who receive both drugs and PT have worse back injuries, or specific kinds of back injuries that need medication to address. Looking at it from another angle, if you wanted to show that the medications aren't necessary, you'd need to randomly assign people with back injuries to the PT—only and PT/drugs group, which didn't happen here.

Thus, any answer that suggests a difference between the two groups's injuries that made drugs necessary in one case but not the other would resolve the paradox here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer isn't clearly aligned with our anticipation, but it does present information that leads in that direction. It establishes that there are two types of patients—those that need both PT and drugs, and those that just need PT. If experts who are making this call are accurate, then the two groups in the stimulus are being prescribed the right treatments for their needs, and thus their outcomes would be expected to be the same. But it also establishes that the first group needs that medication to see the same outcomes, which was the view of the experts that created the paradox. This answer therefore resolves the paradox.

Key Takeaway:
One weird quirk of the LSAT is that some topics tend to result in the same type of answer. Whenever the LSAT is comparing groups with similar types of injuries or illnesses but different treatments, the correct answer generally deals with those injuries being at different severity levels that are correctly diagnosed by doctors, thus justifying the different treatments. Why is this a recurring theme on the LSAT? Who knows? It's more important to recognize it than understand where it comes from!

Incorrect. There's no indication in this answer as to whether the drugs were a necessary part of that treatment, as claimed by the experts in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer seems to bring up a new group—people who successfully treated their back injuries with drugs, not a combination of drugs and PT. In bringing up a new group, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about treatment for back injuries, so other types of injuries are out of scope.