Q26 - As advances in medical research

[GeneW]

I see why E is correct, but can someone explain why D is incorrect?

Increase in population can result in an increase in the number of infections. Is the issue between "rate" in the stimulus vs. "number" in D?

Thank you in advance.

[sumukh09]

I fell for D too.

But there's nothing in the stimulus that suggests that the population is increasing in size. Yes, it's true that more lives are being saved because of the advances in research, but we don't know anything about the other side of the coin, namely whether the number of people dying due to other reasons unrelated to illnesses is increasing or decreasing.

People are living longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean the population is "increasing in size"

hope this helps

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type: Explain a Discrepancy

Fact 1:
life spans have increased and health has improved (because of better ability to diagnose/treat illnesses and injuries)
yet
Fact 2:
the rate of serious infections has increased significantly

I normally try to organize my thinking here around
Given that _____, why is it that ____?

We would think that if we're getting so good at medicine that serious infections would be occurring less.

So I would say to myself,
Given that we're better at extending lives and improving health, why is that we're seeing more serious infections?


(A) "it remains true" is actually enough for me to stop reading this ... we're trying to explain a change, so anything describing the status quo seems wrong. This also has no direct tie-in to infections.

(B) This relates to the first sentence but not at all to infections.

(C) This tells me about what happens once you have a serious infection, but it tells me nothing about what causes the infection. I still can't answer WHY are we seeing more infections.

(D) This says gives a reason why you would see more infections: population growth. Can we connect that to the first sentence?
Maybe. It seems plausible that if people are now living longer that the population would be growing. Keep it?

(E) This says that 'modern treatments for otherwise fatal illnesses' can be a reason for more infections. Can we connect that to the first sentence?
Definitely. The 1st sentence is talking about ADVANCES in the ability to diagnose/treat illnesses, therefore extending life spans. I can match that well with MODERN treatments for otherwise fatal illnesses.

Is it bad that (E) only talks about 'susceptibility to INFECTION' while (D) actually talks about 'serious infections'?

No. Susceptibility to INFECTION includes susceptibility to serious infections, so something that makes you more susceptible to infection could potentially explain why we would see more serious infections.

The real important difference between (D) and (E) is our ability to connect it to the first sentence.

As we saw, (E) has language that matches up way more directly with the 1st sentence.

To connect (D), we had to ask ourselves, "Can I assume that if life spans are increasing that population sizes are increasing?"

That's a bigger leap. Population size is based on birth rate and death rate. We know that people are dying at a later age, but we don't know whether they're reproducing at the same rate. You could have longer life spans paired up with declining birth rates and have a flat or declining population size.

Since the connection described in (D) is "directly proportional" ... to get a "steady and significant" increase in the rate of infections over the past few decades, we'd need to have a "steady and significant" increase in population sizes. No support for that.

Hope this helps.

[GeneW]

Thank you for the great explanations.

[vu.anthony]

If possible can anyone validate or disprove my claim? The reason why I believe D is incorrect is because D states the increase in infections is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the population increase. Wouldn't that imply that the rates are not really increasing but rather staying constant? So that wouldn't explain the discrepancy?

thank you

[pewals13]

In regards to (D): If the absolute number of infections increases proportionally to the absolute number of people in the population, doesn't the infection rate stay the same?

[ohthatpatrick]

That's a great point / catch!

We are definitely talking about the RATE (per capita) of infection not the actual number of infections, so (D) wouldn't work correctly even if we COULD confidently equate "increased life spans" with "increased population".

Nice job!

[cuvimario]

Double check:

Hi!

I hoep someone can help me out on this one cause im really frustrated.

See, I get whats wrong with "D" But I just CANNOT accept "E" as "correct" and here is why:

The stimulus says that "OVERALL health has improved". E accepts that modern treatments actually increase susceptibility to infection. So, while modern treatments increase life spans and improves health, I cant accept "OVERALL HEALTH IMPROVEMENT" if it is screwing up with my ability to fight infection.

Anyone that could help out with this dilema since I really see no right answer for this one.

Thanks!

[jblim1324]

Double check:


The stimulus says that "OVERALL health has improved". E accepts that modern treatments actually increase susceptibility to infection. So, while modern treatments increase life spans and improves health, I cant accept "OVERALL HEALTH IMPROVEMENT" if it is screwing up with my ability to fight infection.

Thanks!

E is compatible with the stimulus, because infections are only a part of the whole wide world of diseases. So if, say, modern medicine eliminated cancer and heart diseases (shame because then LSAC would have nothing to talk about except dinosaurs and extraterrestrial life), there can be improvements in overall health, while the rate of serious infections rises.

Also, I don't think that the issue with this question is in the meaning of "rate" or in "as a population increases in size." Based on what Google says, the rate of infections can refer to either the speed at which an infection spreads or the number of infections itself.

The main discrepancy in this question is that both modern medicine and overall health have improved but there has been an increase in the rate of serious infections. If we are better equipped to fight against diseases, why are we not able to curb the number of infections? The correct answer has to mention both the improvements in medicine and the increase in the rate of infections

(D) is wrong because it says nothing about the improved ability of modern medicine. Yeah, the population can increase in size, and the number of serious infections with it, but it doesn't discuss anything about modern medicine. Based on the stimulus, the improved ability of the medical profession should be able to treat infections, even if the rate of infections is proportional to the increase in population.

(E) is correct, on the other hand, precisely because it factors in the improvements in medicine. It says that the medical profession is indeed better equipped to battle diseases, but infections are a corollary of the improvements in medicine. This one is subtle, but it explains how there could be an improvement in medicine and overall health, while the number of infections increases. In other words, it mentions both sides of the discrepancy, whereas (D) doesn't

[krisk743]

Quick two cents on something that the LSAT ALWAYS screws me with.


Doesn't matter how good the answer sounds, if it EVER, EVER EVER EVER talks about "proportional to..." and it isn't absolutely 110% clear that proportion hasn't been spoken about, then it's wrong. Always and forever. That's it.