#6 - The best way to increase the blood supply in the city

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lsatbossintraining]

Hi -

Not sure how to arrive at the right answer. Here was my thinking. For the record, I don't know the correct answer so I'm providing my pure process.

Conclusion: Best way to increase blood supply in Pulaski is to encourage more donations by people who are regular blood donors.

Evidence: Because a study in Moorestown and Fredericksburg showed that (i) it's difficult and expensive to attract first-time donors and (ii) many sporadic donors are reluctant to give more often.

Prephrase (before I read Q stem): Ah, well Pulaski must be relevantly similar to Moorestown and Fredericksburg; otherwise, we can't use Moorestown and Fredericksburg to make a recommendation about Pulaski. (What if the towns are socio-economically different, or Pulaski is made up of elderly people whereas the other towns are college/party towns?)

Thinking after reading Q stem: I'm on the right track! Let me find an answer that shows a difference between the towns.

(A): Seems to strengthen the argument.
(B): Hm. Also seems to strengthen; if there are fewer potential donors in Moores and Fredericks, and they were able to increase donation frequency, then all the more likely that Pulaski - with an even larger pool of potential donors - would hit that mark as well.
(C): Hm. Not sure how the campaign event's impact on donor frequency weakens the conclusion; the conclusion is based on a comparison I think, so I'll pass on this one.
(D): I kinda' like this one. If there are significantly more sporadic donors, then maybe we'll drive up the numbers. Then again, it's not about total bags of blood Pulaski collects but rather the frequency with which people donate. So eh, going to pass on this, hoping (E) hits the nail on the head.
(E): Huh. Like this one a lot! If the regulars are already donating as much as they medically can, then encouraging them to donate more can't possibly work.

Therefore, I'm sticking with (E).

BTW, am I expected to be this thoughtful under timed conditions? Or will I eventually develop better instincts and gravitate towards the correct answers?

Many thanks,
Kyle

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Kyle,

Very nice job on this question, and you did indeed arrive at the correct answer!

To your more general question, you should be thinking this deeply about all the LR questions, but there are certain elements of the process you could streamline. For example, we have to be careful about getting too specific with a Weaken (or Strengthen) question prephrase, because there are often many ways to weaken and strengthen the short arguments on the LR section.

Here, you could begin by ID'ing the conclusion (as you've done), but making your prephrase simpler: you're looking for an answer choice that runs against the notion that the best way to increase blood supply is to encourage more donations by regular blood donors. Answer choice E goes straight at the conclusion (and while it doesn't entirely bypass the "relevant difference" aspect you prephrased, it also doesn't obviously highlight the issue as a "relevant difference"): in Pulaski, we can't increase the frequency of the donations of regular blood donors (because they're maxed out already), so the strategy can't even get off the ground. Using the simpler prephrase might allow a quicker process of getting through the answer choices (keeping any contenders, but after a quick trip through the answers, arriving at what is clearly the strongest and best answer, answer choice E).

Continue thinking this deeply about every LR question! The process ultimately will come faster to you. It's a matter of repetition and exposure--don't give up on it just because it seems somewhat cumbersome right now!

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[menkenj]

Hi there,
Can you help me understand why D is wrong?

Is it because, even if the number of sporadic blood donors in Pulaski is significantly greater than the number of regular blood donors, it is still possible for encouraging more donations from regular donors to be the best way to increase the blood supply? The author could argue that we haven't hurt the argument because it does not depend on how much the blood supply increases, only that the best way to do so is through increase of donations from regular donors.

[gwlsathelp]

Hi, I did not see E as a contender. I understand it probably does the most to undermine the argument, but I saw that "almost all" was enough room to still support the conclusion of the argument. There are still regular blood donors that could donate blood and increase the supply. As an aside, I've definitely seen "almost all" used as a trap in some of these logical reasoning questions. What are some tips to go about attacking the phrasing?

I chose B because it at least gave me some leeway to question the survey results and whether or not they were accurate.

[Adam Tyson]

menkenj, you are on the right track here, but also consider that answer D tells us nothing about whether the comparison of Pulaski to those other cities is a good one or not. The argument is basically "it worked in those other places, so it could work in this place." It may not matter how many regular donors there are, or if there are more sporadic donors than regular ones. All that matters is whether focusing on the regulars is the best way to increase the supply, and this answer does nothing to undermine that.

gwlsathelp , you may be putting a little too much pressure on the answer here. We don't need the correct answer to absolutely destroy the argument; we only need to weaken it. If almost all of the regular donors are unable to safely donate any more than they already do, that would at least raise some doubts about the plan, and some doubt is all we need! This answer also helps to break down the comparison to those other cities, because in those cities "many" regular donors increased their donations, but in this city you couldn't get "many" to do it because "almost all" cannot do so safely. Thus, this answer not only raises doubts about how effective the campaign could be, it also shows that the comparison may not be a good one, thus undermining the only evidence we have for the conclusion.

[gwlsathelp]

gwlsathelp , you may be putting a little too much pressure on the answer here. We don't need the correct answer to absolutely destroy the argument; we only need to weaken it. If almost all of the regular donors are unable to safely donate any more than they already do, that would at least raise some doubts about the plan, and some doubt is all we need! This answer also helps to break down the comparison to those other cities, because in those cities "many" regular donors increased their donations, but in this city you couldn't get "many" to do it because "almost all" cannot do so safely. Thus, this answer not only raises doubts about how effective the campaign could be, it also shows that the comparison may not be a good one, thus undermining the only evidence we have for the conclusion.

Hahaha, thank you, and I agree with your assessment of my explanation. The answer choice I selected still supports the study, which is not weakening.