3027

[jchowsun]

P: Early screening for a certain kind of prostate cancer is associated with early detection.

(A1): Even if a doctor detects a patient's prostate cancer early, it can still be too late to save that patient's life.

(A2): The ability to detect prostate cancer early does not necessarily correlate to lower fatality rates from that disease.

C: Early screening for prostate cancer may not translate into lower rates of death from that disease in the overall population.

The correct answer is A2. But what is wrong with A1? Thanks in advance.

[noah]

P: Early screening for a certain kind of prostate cancer is associated with early detection.

(A1): Even if a doctor detects a patient's prostate cancer early, it can still be too late to save that patient's life.

(A2): The ability to detect prostate cancer early does not necessarily correlate to lower fatality rates from that disease.

C: Early screening for prostate cancer may not translate into lower rates of death from that disease in the overall population.

The correct answer is A2. But what is wrong with A1? Thanks in advance.

That's a tough one.

I think you can figure it out if you think about this: Why might someone die in A1?

Got it?

[jchowsun]

Could you explain a little bit more? Thanks.

[noah]

Sure.

Let's imagine Tony has prostate cancer, and the doctor walks out of the room muttering "I couldn't save his life." Do we know what Tony died of? Maybe the doctor couldn't save Tony from a heart attack, suicide at the thought of having cancer, or countless other issues that a doctor might not save us from.

It's not the best worded wrong answer, because "it can be too late" sure does seem to refer to the prostate cancer referred to earlier, but it actually is vague, and the other answer is much more specific.

[jchowsun]

Thanks. I got it now.

[zip]

Also, the conclusion addresses overall death rates, not individual cases of death. It is indeed true that in some cases people who are diagnosed with prostate cancer may be beyond the point of saving from prostate cancer (not some other cause of death), but we can not infer that this is sufficient to conclude that on the whole screening is not necessarily effective in reducing overall deaths from prostate cancer.

My problem with wording of A2 involves the use of "ability to." Just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we use that ability. So if we have the ability to detect prostate cancer early, but almost never use it, it can be true that the ability doesn't correlate with lower death rates, but does not mean that using this ability( via screenings) will not nec. translate into lower death rates from p. cancer. That's a gap that vitiates the validity of the inference.

[noah]

Also, the conclusion addresses overall death rates, not individual cases of death. It is indeed true that in some cases people who are diagnosed with prostate cancer may be beyond the point of saving from prostate cancer (not some other cause of death), but we can not infer that this is sufficient to conclude that on the whole screening is not necessarily effective in reducing overall deaths from prostate cancer.

My problem with wording of A2 involves the use of "ability to." Just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we use that ability. So if we have the ability to detect prostate cancer early, but almost never use it, it can be true that the ability doesn't correlate with lower death rates, but does not mean that using this ability( via screenings) will not nec. translate into lower death rates from p. cancer. That's a gap that vitiates the validity of the inference.

Good eye! LSAC is definitely a bit tighter with these than we are!