Q6 - Clinician: Patients with immune system disorders

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Evaluate

Stimulus Breakdown:
Treating patients for I involves a drug that causes O, so they take a drug to help with O. A new drug helps with O in another way, so that should be added to the drug cocktail.

Answer Anticipation:
Read carefully here - the clinician wants to add this drug to the prescription, not use it to replace the old drug. Before adding this new drug, I'd want to know if there are any issues with taking it with the old drugs.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The size of the class doesn't matter since we know these patients are taking this specific one.

(B) Out of scope. Whatever the reason, they're used to treat these patients. It's irrelevant to know "Why?" in order to determine if adding a new drug is something that should be done.

(C) Out of scope. Cost doesn't matter to an argument about whether someone should take a certain drug.

(D) Out of scope. This answer is about the current drug, not the new one. The length it's been in use doesn't impact whether the new drug is a good idea.

(E) Bingo. While I was expecting an answer about a dangerous interaction, it would also be relevant to know how efficacious (how much it works) it is in combination. If the answer is, "Nearly 100%", the recommendation is different than if the answer is, "Not at all."

Takeaway/Pattern:
For evaluate questions, pick opposite answers. If the effect of those two answers on the argument differs (and they both do have an impact), then it's your answer.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

Question Type:
Evaluate


(C) Out of scope. Cost doesn't matter to an argument about whether someone should take a certain drug.

#officialexplanation

Would you say "C" is a general rule on the LSAT that whenever the argument is about what one should/ should not do the financial considerations do not matter? In my opinion, the financial cost would touch on the practicality of a proposal, which in turn impacts wether or not the proposal should be done. If this new drug is not covered by insurance and costs a lot maybe doctors should not prescribe the drug as most people can not afford it.

Would it have made a difference if the conclusion had said "Everyone MUST (not SHOULD) take the drug where the degree of the conclusion allows us to back track more and object to it that it can not be a must because people can't afford it but, ideally ,people should take it?

[crocca]

Hi, I'm having trouble eliminating answer choice D. The way I thought about it was if the drug that preserves existing bone has been around for as long as the immune system drugs, then the bones of the patients would be preserved and not in need of growth, and therefore the new drug would not need to be prescribed (and if it is the preserve bone drug is newer than the immune system drug, then people did lose bone, and therefore should take the drug). I do understand how answer E is a better answer than D, but I need help on how to eliminate D..

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help resolve my doubts.