LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 angelsfan0055
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Feb 26, 2021
|
#95781
Hey, I'm a little curious why B isn't the correct answer. I tried using the Mechanistic approach and saw that insurance company regulations were mentioned in the conclusion and not mentioned in the premises. so then when I went to the answer choices, I was looking for an answer that mentioned the regulations. B mentioned the regulations and happened to be the only one that did, so I ended up picking it?

What am I doing wrong that appears to have led me astray with this question and some other justify where I attempt to use this technique? on some questions it helps me pick the right one immediately but on some others I end up getting it totally wrong
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#96099
The conclusion that we need to justify here, angelsfan0055, is that the regulations decrease the quality of medical care. It's not just the regulations that are the new element, but the lower quality of care. Answer B just tells us that the doctors are against the regs, but does nothing to prove that the quality of care is impacted. We need an answer that indicates that the tests are an essential part of quality care.
User avatar
 pelusolakes
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Sep 13, 2022
|
#97636
Hello! My question is a little different.

I answered this question correctly through a process of elimination, but I was very suspicious of answer choice A because it seemed to me that this assumption had already been established in the stimulus.

“Modern physicians often employ laboratory tests, in addition to physical examinations, in order to diagnose diseases accurately.”

I took this to be a conditional statement and rephrased it in my head as such: “In order to diagnose diseases accurately, it is required that modern physicians employ laboratory tests and physical examinations.”

Am I correct in assuming that “in order to” in a sentence always introduces a sufficient condition? Maybe my mistake was to assume that “in addition to” meant “both” rather than “one or the other, sometimes both” in this case?

Any insight would be appreciated! Thank you very much!
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1419
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#97651
You are overlooking the key word in the answer choice, pelusolakes. Answer choice (A) is specific to the uncovered tests. Our stimulus just provides that some aspects of physical examinations and some laboratory tests are needed for accurate diagnosis. But that doesn't tell us that every test a physician orders would be required to make a diagnosis. Different tests serve different functions. We need to know about those non-covered tests. Why aren't they covered? If we are drawing a conclusion that the insurance companies decrease the quality of medical care by not covering the tests, those uncovered tests specifically must be performing a function for medical care. Answer choice (A) fills the gap in the argument by connecting those uncovered tests to the ability of physicians to diagnose illness.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.