PrepTest 106

[lcid:3520] Prep Test 106 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Hospital auditor: The Rodríguez Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed/Flawed

Question Type

Methods of Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Hospital Auditor: The money was donated to minimize suffering, but some is being spent on diagnosis, so the terms of the donation are being violated.
Clinic Administrator: Early diagnosis leads to less suffering (so the terms aren’t being violated).

Answer Anticipation

Whenever a Methods of Reasoning question features a rebuttal, we should start with a couple considerations:
Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the first speaker’s conclusion? If she disagrees, does she think it’s wrong or unsupported? Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the first speaker’s premises? Logic/assumptions? Does she bring up a new consideration?
Here, the Administrator reaches the opposite conclusion as the Auditor - he believes spending money on new diagnostic technologies does adhere to the stipulations placed on the donation.
How does he reach that opposite conclusion? He brings up a new consideration - that the new technologies can lead to early diagnosis, which can lead to early treatment, which can minimize suffering. In other words, he shows that there’s a long chain that has the new technologies indirectly lessening suffering.
Let’s find an answer stating that the Administrator arrives at the opposite conclusion by showing an indirect way that the action results in the effect.

Answer choices

  1. A
    demonstrating that the hospital Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The Auditor concludes that the clinic is violating the terms of the donation, whereas the Administrator believes that it isn’t, so he doesn’t believe the Auditor is broadly correct.
  2. B
    showing that the hospital Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    There’s no discussion of what should/ought to be done, so this answer is out of scope.
  3. C
    reminding the hospital auditor Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The Administrator is, if anything, arguing that being told what to do (how to spend the money) isn’t the same as being told how to do it, since there’s a “creative” way to spend the money that conforms to the stipulations placed on it.
  4. D
    arguing that, in assessing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The Administrator doesn’t believe that there has been a violation, so he doesn’t argue anything about assessing the severity of it!
  5. E
    reinterpreting a key phrase Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This is the closest answer to saying that the Administrator says the Auditor is wrong, so we should dig in even though it is really abstract and doesn’t seem to line up with our anticipation. However, the Administrator does reinterpret a key phrase in the Auditor’s argument - minimizing suffering. The Auditor claims that investing in new diagnostic technology doesn’t count because it doesn’t “flow directly to its patients.” However, the Administrator redefines that phrase to include indirect ways of minimizing suffering, not just directly spending it on patients. And in redefining that key phrase, he undermines the assumption that spending money on anything other than the patients can’t minimize suffering. This definitely isn’t an answer we’d anticipate, but it lines up with our view that the Administrator thinks the Auditor is wrong, so we spent the time to analyze it and found out that it’s correct!

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion