Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 17

Incorrect. The GHS states that they won't pay for Antinfia until its cost effectiveness is proven, but that doesn't establish that this is a general rule they apply to all medications. Maybe it just applies to flu meds!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Government health services: We won't pay for Antinfia until you prove its cost effectiveness.
PharmCo: We can't prove its cost effectiveness until you pay for Antinfia.

Answer Anticipation:
The Government Health Services' position is that proving cost effectiveness is necessary to them paying for it. PharmCo's position is that the GHS paying for it is necessary to them proving cost effectiveness. In short, both sides need the action of the other to happen before they can do their action. Since there's no way for that to happen, we must accept that Antinfia is destined to not be implemented by the GHS.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the GHS won't pay for Antinfia until its cost effectiveness is proven, which can't happen until the GHS pays for it and it's in widespread circulation. Since a necessary condition for Antinfia going into widespread circulation requires that it's already in widespread circulation, it will never be able to go into that circulation.

Key Takeaway:
When it's necessary for two separate actions to happen first before the other can happen, then those two actions can't happen. It's rare that the LSAT sets up a situation where something is impossible, but this is one of the places where that happens.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of patients or their paying out of pocket for meds, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There are no statements of opinion or what "should" happen in the stimulus, so this answer including that language is out of scope.

Incorrect. The cost effectiveness hasn't been studied and can't be until it's in widespread circulation, so we can't draw this conclusion.