Q18 - Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate

[juitty]

could anyone help me this Q?

I ezly ruled out B C E

But I can not understand why A is correct and why E is incorrect clearly~

I need your helps thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thanks for bringing this one to the forum!

Getting down to answer choices (A) and (E) is a good start, and this so typical of the difficulties the LSAT presents to us; the final elimination is always the toughest.

On ID the Disagreement questions, it's often easiest to compare the answer choices to the two arguments, rather than try to prephrase the disagreement - though in this case, I feel pretty comfortable suggesting the disagreement is about whether a public or private health care system would be best. Dr. Schilling clearly would like a private health care system, whereas Dr. Laforte would prefer the public health care system. They both appeal to fairness and rest on the assumption that people have a right to medical treatments. They both also appear to acknowledge that under either system some folks will be denied medical treatments. Under the public health care system, rationing would preclude some folks from getting a treatment they need and under the private health care system, cost would preclude the poor from getting a treatment they need.

When you're down to two answer choices on an ID the Disagreement question, ask yourself, "would either of the people debating the point agree with the answer choice as stated?" The answer to that question for answer choice (A) is "yes". Dr. Schilling would agree with this claim. Then ask yourself, "so would the other person disagree with this claim?" Again the answer is "yes". Dr. Laforte would disagree with answer choice (A).

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(B) is a claim that both speakers would agree with.
(C) is a claim that neither speaker is committed to agreeing with.
(D) is a claim that neither speaker is committed to agreeing with.
(E) is a claim that neither speaker is committed to agreeing with. Neither speaker is very specific about what constitutes a right. Dr. Schilling discusses wanting and needing a treatment, but does not suggest that one has a right to any treatment someone wants or needs. The issue is whether a right to a treatment is violated by limited access to those treatments, either because of rationed health care (Dr. Schilling's argument) or cost (Dr. Laforte's argument).

Hope that helps!

[hayleychen12]

I chose D, Dr. Schilling stated "People are denied their right to treatments they want and need." which I think can indicate that he/she would disagree with the statement in D.
Laforte stated "people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of incomes is not violated" which I think can indicate that he/she would agree with the statement in D.

Any help!!!!! Thx!!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

(D) is such an extreme claim, that no reasonable person would ever endorse it.

When you have national health care, NO ONE ... EVER? .... who needs a familiar treatment will be denied that treatment?

Does "familiar treatment" mean the same thing as "decent medical treatment"?

Not really. A double bypass surgery is a "familiar treatment" for people with heart disease, but it's not a guarantee under national health care.

What IS a guarantee is decent, basic, conventional medicine: x-rays, physicals, mammograms, etc.

Dr. L doesn't deny that there may be rationing.

Dr. L is essentially saying, "Yes, maybe people are sometimes deprived of high-tech treatments due to rationing, but at least NO ONE is denied basic treatments."

"Equal access to life-saving procedures" doesn't mean that every single person always receiving the life-saving procedure ... it just means that the decision about whether or not to have the procedure is not based on the income of the patient.

[ottoman]

can you explain why Schilling would agree with A? I did not find any support even though A is the best answer choice.