Q8 - Coherent solutions for the problem

[yahoo]

I am totally confused by questions 7 and 8! Can someone provide an explanation for both? I'm lost. Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Tough questions!

One thing we might notice initially is that neither of the questions asks for us to evaluate the logic of the argument. Both questions hinge on our understanding of what of in the text, rather than our judgment of it -- this can be a helpful distinction to make. Both questions are testing, on a stripped down level, how well we can read the text.

Therefore, it's no surprise that the primary challenges in this argument, to me at least, seem to do with language -- it's hard to understand what the sentences are actually saying!

Let's go sentence by sentence and strip them down to their core meaning:

1: A smooth solution for cutting heath-care costs can't be found in the current system, in which a bunch of separate groups split up the costs.

2: That's because the system encourages some of these groups (h.c. providers and insurers) to shift this costs to other groups.

3: The 80's are one example of this: costs go down in some places it goes up in others.

4: More specific example of how cutting one cost gave rise to another cost: decreasing payment for physician visits increased patients in emergency rooms.

Please go through the sentences again and make sure these snapshots make sense to you -- if you're not sure how any of the above was translated, please feel free to follow up.

Now let's discuss the questions --

7 is a procedure question -- which of the following "tools" does the author use in getting to his point?

There are many potential correct answers, so we have to arrive at the one that we happen to be given by eliminating wrong answers.

(A) We haven't discussed the premise of h.c. reimbursement, and in general this answer is not relevant to anything we thought as we read and translated the argument.

(B) Fraud is not discussed once in this argument, and this answer is only dangerous is you extrapolate too far from the text. Furthermore, no intent is attributed to individual people.

(C) This seems fine. The argument does use an analogy (the balloon) to show how action in area impacts action in another (interrelationships). Let's keep it for now.

(D) This answer actually doesn't make any sense if you think about it, but, you don't have to think about it too hard, because you know that alternative systems, let alone each alternative system, are not discussed.

(E) There is instance cited of cooperation being possible.

(C) is the only viable answer, and (C) is correct.

8. This is an inference question. We want to be laser focused on finding the most provable answer, and we want to eliminate answers that show clear signs of not being provable.

(A) doesn't seem likely. "Only by a comprehensive approach" is not discussed. But, it does seem like it might be related to what is in the argument, which is a somewhat non-comprehensive approach. Let's keep it for now.

(B) is not provable. This has nothing to do with the text.

(C) is not provable. This goes well beyond the text.

(D) is not provable. This also goes well beyond the text.

(E) is not provable. This is much more specific to be provable based on this text.

Le'ts go back to (A), our only viable answer. Could (A) be provable?

What we're told is that a system of payment by separate groups cannot work. Therefore, we know that either:

If a system can work, it's going to be not by separate groups, aka "comprehensive."

or

No system can work at all.

So, the system can only work, if it can work at all, using a comprehensive approach.

(A) is the most provable based on the text, and therefore correct.

Hope that is helpful!

[canylaw]

Tough questions!

One thing we might notice initially is that neither of the questions asks for us to evaluate the logic of the argument. Both questions hinge on our understanding of what of in the text, rather than our judgment of it -- this can be a helpful distinction to make. Both questions are testing, on a stripped down level, how well we can read the text.

Therefore, it's no surprise that the primary challenges in this argument, to me at least, seem to do with language -- it's hard to understand what the sentences are actually saying!

Let's go sentence by sentence and strip them down to their core meaning:

1: A smooth solution for cutting heath-care costs can't be found in the current system, in which a bunch of separate groups split up the costs.

2: That's because the system encourages some of these groups (h.c. providers and insurers) to shift this costs to other groups.

3: The 80's are one example of this: costs go down in some places it goes up in others.

4: More specific example of how cutting one cost gave rise to another cost: decreasing payment for physician visits increased patients in emergency rooms.

Please go through the sentences again and make sure these snapshots make sense to you -- if you're not sure how any of the above was translated, please feel free to follow up.

Now let's discuss the questions --

7 is a procedure question -- which of the following "tools" does the author use in getting to his point?

There are many potential correct answers, so we have to arrive at the one that we happen to be given by eliminating wrong answers.

(A) We haven't discussed the premise of h.c. reimbursement, and in general this answer is not relevant to anything we thought as we read and translated the argument.

(B) Fraud is not discussed once in this argument, and this answer is only dangerous is you extrapolate too far from the text. Furthermore, no intent is attributed to individual people.

(C) This seems fine. The argument does use an analogy (the balloon) to show how action in area impacts action in another (interrelationships). Let's keep it for now.

(D) This answer actually doesn't make any sense if you think about it, but, you don't have to think about it too hard, because you know that alternative systems, let alone each alternative system, are not discussed.

(E) There is instance cited of cooperation being possible.

(C) is the only viable answer, and (C) is correct.

8. This is an inference question. We want to be laser focused on finding the most provable answer, and we want to eliminate answers that show clear signs of not being provable.

(A) doesn't seem likely. "Only by a comprehensive approach" is not discussed. But, it does seem like it might be related to what is in the argument, which is a somewhat non-comprehensive approach. Let's keep it for now.

(B) is not provable. This has nothing to do with the text.

(C) is not provable. This goes well beyond the text.

(D) is not provable. This also goes well beyond the text.

(E) is not provable. This is much more specific to be provable based on this text.

Le'ts go back to (A), our only viable answer. Could (A) be provable?

What we're told is that a system of payment by separate groups cannot work. Therefore, we know that either:

If a system can work, it's going to be not by separate groups, aka "comprehensive."

or

No system can work at all.

So, the system can only work, if it can work at all, using a comprehensive approach.

(A) is the most provable based on the text, and therefore correct.

Hope that is helpful!

did you mean to say " There is no instance cited...?