Q18 - In the past decade,

[ldanny24]

This stimulus is talking about two forms of treatment for disease X.

1. Standard methods (effective but expensive and painful)
2. Nonstandard methods (ineffective but little discomfort)

Less money has gone to standard methods and more to nonstandard methods.

Therefore, less money is being spent now on effective treatments of disease X. I believe the assumption would be that since nonstandard methods have proven to be ineffective, money would be taken away from this treatment.

The problem I'm having is that the stimulus goes from Standard Methods to ALL effective treatments. It makes a sort of jump. The stimulus doesn't include whether other forms of treatment were being used. Maybe there was a third option that was the most effective and money had been consistently poured to that one.

I think D would close this gap since it talks about MOST of the money being given to nonstandard treatments (ineffective ones) thereby insuring that less money was being spent on effective treatments.

Not too sure why E is correct. Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think the issue you're having on this one stems from the fact that you've misidentified the flaw in the argument.

We know that standard treatments are effective and that nonstandard treatments are ineffective. There is a guaranteed split and everything is either standard and effective or nonstandard and ineffective. So the gap in the reasoning that you identified

The problem I'm having is that the stimulus goes from Standard Methods to ALL effective treatments. It makes a sort of jump. The stimulus doesn't include whether other forms of treatment were being used. Maybe there was a third option that was the most effective and money had been consistently poured to that one.

isn't really a concern.

The conclusion of this argument is that less money is being spent on effective treatments (which we learn are the standard ones) for a certain disease than 10 years ago. Why? Because a greater percent of money spent on treatment for that disease is going to ineffective treatments.

The flaw in the argument is that the evidence relies on percentages, while the conclusion is about an amount. This is a common flaw that appears on the LSAT. Think of it this way... Would you rather have 10% of $10,000,000 or 90% of $1.

We don't know based on the argument how much is being spent on disease X overall. Suppose the total amount being spent on treating disease X increased dramatically. Then it's possible that even though a greater proportion of the total money is now going to ineffective treatments, the amount going to effective treatments actually increased. Here are some numbers to flush out that scenario:

Total for disease X 10 years ago: $100,000
Percentage for standard: 70%
Percentage for nonstandard: 30%
Amount for standard: $70,000
Amount for nonstandard: $30,000


Total for disease X today: $1,000,000
Percentage for standard: 50%
Percentage for nonstandard: 50%
Amount for standard: $500,000
Amount for nonstandard: $500,000

The great thing about answer choice (E) is that it corrects for this oversight in the argument.

(A) is confusing but irrelevant. It seems like this answer is saying that less money is being spent on treatment, similar to (E), but instead it talks about how common different varieties of the disease are-and we don't know that this or that variety's rate of occurrence will affect treatment rates. For all we know, regardless of diminishing occurrences, the rate of treatment can go up because of increased public awareness.

(B) is tricky! If nonstandard/ineffective are more expensive, won't less money get spent on the standard ones? It depends on how much money is spent in general on treatment, and how much more expensive the nonstandard becomes. We're still in the dark about the total amounts spent.

(C) is about how much was spent on the disease in general, in relation to total medical spending. This could mean that total spending went down, or that spending on disease X went up. Either way doesn't help the argument.

(D) is tempting. If 50+% was spent on nonstandard, it must be that less money went to standard, right? No! What if total spending on disease X quadruple-dupled?

[ldanny24]

Yeah, I kinda see your point now.

Pretty much the stimulus itself does not say whether the total amount had increased or decreased, and the fact that E says the total amount decreased could sorta paint a picture like this

Total amount 10 years ago $100,000
Standard method: 70% - $70,000
Nonstandard method: 30% - 30,000

Today: $10,000 (Since E, total amount has declined)
Standard method (decreasing): 50% - $5,000
Nonstandard method (increasing): 50% - 5,000

This is what makes the "Obviously" obvious. Once we have this assumption down.

So according to D it wouldn't matter if most of the money went to pay for nonstandard treatments since we're not sure if the total amount increased or decreased. If the total amount had increased then the conclusion could be weakened.

Your response really cleared it up for me. Thanks!

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone help me answer why (B) is wrong? I would assume that if the nonstandard methods of treating disease X are more expensive now than they were a decade ago, then wouldn't money being spent on standard treatments be less than ten years ago?

[noah]

Could someone help me answer why (B) is wrong? I would assume that if the nonstandard methods of treating disease X are more expensive now than they were a decade ago, then wouldn't money being spent on standard treatments be less than ten years ago?

(B) is quite tempting, but knowing that the non-standard option is more expensive doesn't tell us if more or less is being spent on the standard. What if more money is being spent on both? We need an answer that addresses the looming question of what has happened to the total amount spent.

Make sense?

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone help me answer why (B) is wrong? I would assume that if the nonstandard methods of treating disease X are more expensive now than they were a decade ago, then wouldn't money being spent on standard treatments be less than ten years ago?

(B) is quite tempting, but knowing that the non-standard option is more expensive doesn't tell us if more or less is being spent on the standard. What if more money is being spent on both? We need an answer that addresses the looming question of what has happened to the total amount spent.

Make sense?

Yes Thanks Noah!

[zaidjawed]

Hey Guys,
What if the total amount spent on Disease X remained the same? If we still have a decreasing % for effective and an increasing % for ineffective, wouldn't that just as well solidify the argument?

I guess I see why E is the case, however, it doesn't feel solid enough for some reason.

Does anyone agree with my reasoning?

Thanks

[noah]

Hey Guys,
What if the total amount spent on Disease X remained the same? If we still have a decreasing % for effective and an increasing % for ineffective, wouldn't that just as well solidify the argument?

I guess I see why E is the case, however, it doesn't feel solid enough for some reason.

Does anyone agree with my reasoning?

Thanks

The same amount would work too, but since this is a sufficient assumption question, it's fine to go above and beyond, which in this case means going below and before . So, (E) should actually feel more solid.

[zaidjawed]

Thanks for clearing that up Noah!

[slimjimsquinn]

Is D wrong because it doesn't make a comparison between the past and present?

The conclusion compares $ spent on effective treatment now and ten years ago. And D only talks about the majority of the money during the decade--we don't know if there was a change.

[noah]

Is D wrong because it doesn't make a comparison between the past and present?

The conclusion compares $ spent on effective treatment now and ten years ago. And D only talks about the majority of the money during the decade--we don't know if there was a change.

(D) is wrong because it doesn't tell us about the total amount spent. I just spruced up my first post - you might want to re-read it. Tell me if you still are confused.

[WaltGrace1983]

Here is the argument:

(1) Decreasing % on standard, effective methods over last 10 years
(2) Increasing % on nonstandard, non-effective methods over last 10 years
(C) Therefore, less total amount of money being spent on standard, effective treatments than 10 years ago

The "new information" in the conclusion is the discussion about total $. I need something that connects % to #.

(A) It doesn't matter how common these diseases have become. They could be rare or running rampant, how much money are we spending on them?

(B) More expensive? Fine. How much money are we spending on them?

(C) More percentages? I need total amount!

(D) This is actually yet another percentage that we are given. "Most" = >50%. We don't need this!

(E) Yes! If less money AND we have a decreasing percentage, we can know that there is less money spent on the same treatment.