PrepTest 140
[lcid:3658] Prep Test 140 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Medical school professor: Most
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.
Question Type
Must Be True Questions
Answer choices
-
AEconomic incentives to treat Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. While the stimulus establishes economics as one factor in lawsuits, it doesn't establish it as the main factor. -
BThe economic incentives in Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. The stimulus establishes that economic incentives lead doctors to treat patients rudely, but it doesn't connect either of those ideas to doctors treating medicine as a science rather than an art. In fact, there's no reason given for why doctors have undergone this shift in perception. -
CMalpractice suits brought against Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. While the lawsuits are said to arise out of patients' perceptions, it doesn't state that those perceptions are wrong. The stimulus also never states how to determine if a lawsuit is justified, so this answer is out of scope. -
DThe scientific outlook in Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. There's no language that would allow a statement about what "should" be done to be validly drawn, and language like "entirely different" is too strong based on the relatively weak language throughout the stimulus. -
EDoctors foster, by their Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts
Question Type:
Must Be True
Stimulus Summary:
Most lawsuits are driven by a belief of negligence or carelessness
Some doctors think medicine is a science, not art, and act less compassionately
Economic factors lead to rude behavior, making patients feel bad
Doctors listen better → Lawsuits can be avoided
Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is a random mish-mash of statements about doctors, lawsuits, and perception of their services and medicine in general. There's one conditional statement we diagrammed out that may lead to an answer. The third and final statements both talk about rude behavior, so we can combine those to find a potential inference. However, with all the information here, the relatively weak statements ("most," "many," "less," "sometimes," etc . . . ), and the lack of clear connections between the statements, we need to dive into the answer choices knowing that we'll be checking the details against the statements in the stimulus instead of having a solid anticipation.
Answer Explanation:
The stimulus states that doctors are less compassionate, treat patients rudely, discourage them from asking questions, and patronize them. This would qualify as fostering a perception that they don't care about their patients. By creating a generalization from the details in the stimulus, this answer is strongly supported.
Key Takeaway:
When a Must Be True question doesn't have clear overlap between statements or inferences to be made, head into the answers knowing that you're going to need to pay attention to the details to eliminate answers that are off. Also, when you have a stimulus like this, there's a good chance the correct answer will be a weak generalization from some of the statements made.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Confused 2 replies
Started by rmkrutz@crimson.ua.edu