#15 - Ordinary mountain sickness, a common condition

[jared.xu]

I don’t see how the correct answer of Q15 is an assumption that is essential to the argument. One could still say that cerebral edema is especially dangerous even if the treatment for it is the same as ordinary mountain sickness because there are many factors besides the same treatment that could make it dangerous. For instance, we are told that it could become “life-threatening if not correctly treated from its onset.” So if a climber has cerebral edema and thinks that it is merely ordinary mountain sickness, and does not treat it “quickly,” that climber’s life is in danger. By the time he or she gets treatment, it might be too late. Another factor is the degree and quality of treatment. Even if the treatment is the same, cerebral edema could still be dangerous if one misdiagnose it and treats it as mountain sickness. The writer of the stimulus could argue that although cerebral edema requires the same treatment as mountain sickness, it needs the treatment to be better quality or for a longer period of time. So please tell me why you think that the assumption is essential to the argument, and also how it passes the assumption negation test. Thank you.

[Nikki Siclunov]

The author observes that mountain sickness and cerebral edema are both caused by shortage of oxygen, and both exhibit similar symptoms. Because cerebral edema is life-threatening and mountain sickness is not, the former is especially dangerous at high altitudes (arguably, because we can easily mistake it for the less serious condition).

On its surface, this is a decent argument - which is why it's a hard question to answer. However, just because the more serious condition is easily mistaken for the less serious one does not make it especially dangerous. The author provided no information regarding the treatments available for both conditions. If the treatments were the same, then the similarity between the two conditions is no longer something to worry about. Yes, cerebral edema quickly becomes life-threatening if not correctly treated from the onset, but if the treatment were the same in either case, then mistaking cerebral edema for ordinary mountain sickness would pose no danger.

On the LSAT, the notion of "treatment" usually takes into account a variety of aspects related to the successful outcome of a given therapy, including duration, quality, and outcome. So if the treatment for both were the same, this would mean that mountain sickness and cerebral edema require exactly the same quality and duration of therapy to assure the same beneficial outcome. If that were so, then the similarity of symptoms would no longer be a cause for concern.

[jared.xu]

Thank you so much for the explanations. I have one more question regarding your statement in the second paragraph: "yes, cerebral edema quickly becomes life-threatening if not correctly treated from the onset, but if the treatment were the same in either case, then mistaking cerebral edema for ordinary mountain sickness would pose no danger." Isn't there an additional assumption that we need for this statement to work. i.e. people with ordinary mountain sickness are always treated quickly? Without this assumption, the correct answer appears to be not an essential assumption because if mountain climber thought that he or she had ordinary mountain sickness and not cerebral edema, he or she might forgo immediate treatment. This delay would be not deadly for ordinary mountain sickness, but would be especially dangerous for cerebral edema.

What we could learn from this question seems to be that the assumption negation test does not work 100%. Sometimes we have to supply the negated assumption with additional assumptions for it to be able to destroy the argument. Is that a correct analysis? Thank you.

[Nikki Siclunov]

You may be over-thinking this problem The question is whether the logical opposite of (A) weakens the argument, and the answer is clearly yes: if the treatment for ordinary mountain sickness were exactly the same as the treatment for cerebral edema, then cerebral edema would not be especially dangerous at high altitudes. Even if someone confuses a cerebral edema for ordinary mountain sickness, the treatment would be effective against either condition. There is no reason to suspect that someone who believes they have ordinary mountain sickness would purposefully delay treatment: it is reasonable to assume that anyone who feels sick would take the necessary measures to get better as early as possible.

The assumption negation technique does work 100% of the time. This does not mean, however, that there won't be other assumptions upon which the conclusion also depends. The presence of such assumptions does not render the correct answer any less necessary for the conclusion of the argument to work.

[SherryZ]

Hi there! Thank you very much for your help!

Oct 1999 LSAT, Sec 1, LR Q15:

I chose E but the right answer is A

Could you tell me why A is correct? I used negation technique and now I understand why E is wrong, because when I negate E, it does not attack the conclusion. But could you tell me why A is correct??

Thank you very much!

---Sherry

[Jacques Lamothe]

Hey Sherry,

The conclusion of the stimulus is the claim that cerebral edema is especially deadly at high altitudes because its symptoms resemble the symptoms of common mountain sickness. The author is not claiming that cerebral edima is ONLY deadly because its symptoms are similar to mountain sickness. He or she is trying to argue that the symptom similarity makes cerebral edema more deadly in a high-altitude environment. We know from the stimulus information that cerebral edema becomes life-threateneing if not treated correctly from its onset. That means one of the author's assumptions must be that people suffering from symptoms of cerebral edema that mistake them for symptoms of mountain sickness will delay the proper treatment.

You are correct to use the negation test to attack this question. If we negate answer choice (A), we are left with the claim that "the treatment for mountain sickness and cerebral edema are the same." But if the treatments are the same, then a person mistakingly diagnosing themselves with mountain sickness instead of cerebral edema will still receive the correct treatment for cerebral edema as soon as symptoms appear. In that case, high altitudes do not make cerebral edema especially dangerous because symptom similarity does not delay effective treatment. So we know that answer choice A is an assumption of the author's argument.

I hope that helps!

Jacques

[Haleyeastham]

I'm confused on where the treatment issue came into play that could be observed from the stimulus. Can you please explain? Thanks!

[Herzog.Laura]

Haley,

This is an assumption question, so it is looking for a necessary condition to the argument. The correct answer choice should be something that, if false, would weaken the argument.

However, this is looking for a defender type assumption. There isn't a gap in the argument that we need to fill, instead we are going to be ruling out potential weaknesses. This is not a question type where new information automatically makes an answer choice wrong.

We can test our answer choices using the Assumption Negation Technique (by negating each answer choice to see if it weakens the argument).

Answer choice (A) is correct because if the treatment for both conditions is the same, it wouldn't matter whether or not the condition was correctly identified to treat it. Someone with Cerebral edema who thought they had mountain sickness would not be in any particular danger. They would treat for mountain sickness and cure the Cerebral edema anyways. There isn't anything in the stimulus that specifically refers to treatment, but because this is a defender assumption, we can still say that it is necessary for it to be true.

If you tried, you could probably come up with a whole lot of other assumptions on which the argument also depends that are not specifically mentioned. For example, that high altitudes don't lower a person's chance of getting cerebral edema, or that the levels of oxygen at those altitudes are low enough to cause the cerebral edema.

Hope that helps!

[bk1111]

Hi. I am confused about how A is necessary. Even if the treatments differ, couldn’t the conclusion stand as is and cerebral edema still be especially dangerous at high altitudes?

[James Finch]

Hi BK,

The conclusion in the stimulus relies upon the implication that the similar symptoms between cerebral edema and ordinary mountain sickness make diagnosing cerebral edema difficult, and therefore make it more dangerous at high altitudes because it could be mistaken for ordinary mountain sickness.

(A) is a necessary assumption because if the treatments are the same for ordinary mountain sickness and cerebral edema, cerebral edema would not be especially dangerous at high altitude because even if it were confused with ordinary mountain sickness, one would still use the same treatment as if the cerebral edema had been diagnosed correctly.

Hope this clears things up!